Nuclear Investing?

[dixonge]

Is anyone here invested in nuclear energy companies? I'm not, but some investors, like Gates and Buffett, claim that nukes are a safer energy source than wind or solar.

Here is an article that describes 7 nuclear companies that currently have active and optimistic plans for the future:

https://investorplace.com/2021/06/7-clean-energy-stocks-buffett-gates-nuclear-bet/

- Roy

One company not mentioned in that article (but unavailable for investing in the secondary market) is Radiant Nuclear. They are developing small, portable 1MW generators. Early use will be govt. and military, but I like to envision remote towns firing these up for the ultimate in grid resilience.

https://www.radiantnuclear.com/

 

[Koolau]

Realistically, if drought continues across the Southwest, it may make more sense to import more food (especially the highly water-dependent crops currently grown with irrigation) than to desalinate for ag use. Keep in mind that water is "fungible" to a certain extent. So saying "we're only producing domestic water with desalinization" is not strictly true. Irrigation water could easily be diverted to domestic use - thus obviating the need for high-cost, high capital water. Yeah, there are consequences, but ag water is massive. It's measured in acre feet. IOW growing lettuce may take 3 acre feet of water. That's a million gallons of water. That's enough for 10,000 people for a day or 27 people for a year. Other crops take MORE water. I'm not taking a "stand" against irrigation, but simply suggesting that might be cheaper in the long run (more expensive lettuce - or cotton or hay or other ag crops) than desalinizing sea water.

Also, at least within reasonable geographic areas, electricity is fungible. How much sense does it make to use precious Lake Powell water to create electricity to convert sea water into fresh water? Why not bypass the whole process and simply take water from Lake Powell for drinking water? Don't make electricity and don't use electricity to make water. Too simple, I know!

My gut says there are better ways to deal with water shortages than highly technical, highly energy-intensive water purification. On the other hand, if it's possible to desalinate using ONLY excess from renewables, it just might make sense. I have no idea how quickly one could shut down and then restart a desalinization plant that depended on excess PV or Windmill (etc.) output. Once "everyone" in the SW has their panels installed, there will be tons of excess e- during part of the day. YMMV

 

[NW-Bound]

Yeah, I know it is feasible for domestic use. I was trying to replace the Colorado river! My thought was what would it take for agriculture and everything including restoring flow into the Sea of Cortez. That would be a job for nuclear.

The Colorado River is what I was going to post about next.

The flow of the Colorado is highly variable through the seasons; it has been higher than 100,000 cubic feet per second, and lower than 2,500 c.ft./s. Therefore, we have to use its annual flow rate. This annual flow rate is not easy to define, however.

The 1920 Compact that divided the water among the Western states assumed a water flow of 17.5 million acre-feet. Later, it was thought that the above number was based on only 30 years of record, and those were wet years. The long-term average may be as low as 13.5 million acre-feet. The water allocation was based on 16.5 million acre-feet (15 to the USA, and 1.5 to Mexico), so I will use this number.

16.5 million acre-feet per year = 20.35 billion cubic meters per year

From the range of 3-5.5 kWh/cubic meter for desalination in my earlier post, let's use the average of 4.25 kWh for the energy cost of desalination.

The annual energy requirement is then 20.35e9 m3/year x 4.25 kWh/m3 = 86.5 billion kWh/year.

The output of the Palo Verde plant is quoted as 31,920 GWh/year. That's 31.92 billion kWh/year.

It then takes 2.7x the output of the Palo Verde plant to desalinate seawater to match the flow of the Colorado River. This seems low, so I checked and checked the numbers, but did not find an error.

Now, this has not included the cost of pumping the desalinated water for distribution. Let's say we want to pump the water from sea level up to Lake Mead for distribution.

The top of the Hoover Dam is at 376m above sea level. I don't know about the actual energy needed for pumping with losses from friction, but a simple fact from physics is that lifting 20.35 billion cubic meters of water weighting 20.35 trillion kilograms up 376 m takes a minimum of 7.5e16 Joules, or 20.8 billion kWh/year. Some of this energy will be recovered when the water goes back down through the Hoover Dam.

And so, the minimum energy required is (86.5+20.8)/31.92 = 3.4 x Palo Verde plant.

 

[NW-Bound]

Also, at least within reasonable geographic areas, electricity is fungible. How much sense does it make to use precious Lake Powell water to create electricity to convert sea water into fresh water? Why not bypass the whole process and simply take water from Lake Powell for drinking water? Don't make electricity and don't use electricity to make water. Too simple, I know!

No, we are not wasting water like that. The electricity generated by Hoover Dam is just the extra benefit, when the water is discharged from the reservoir down to the distribution channel. That discharged water is on the way to its ultimate consumption points.

 

[ERD50]

Realistically, if drought continues across the Southwest, it may make more sense to import more food (especially the highly water-dependent crops currently grown with irrigation) than to desalinate for ag use. ...

It seems that a lot of water intensive crops are grown in this area. I've heard that some of it is due to the old contracts, if you don't use the water, you lose the rights to it forever. So they use it (come 'hell or high water?').

I played around with making almond milk, partly just to experiment, and we don't always have milk in the fridge, so I though it might be good to make up a batch of the size I needed the night before. For just 2 cups of almond milk, it takes quite a few almonds, and I read that it takes a gallon of irrigation water to produce a single almond. That made me feel guilty about almond milk.

.... How much sense does it make to use precious Lake Powell water to create electricity to convert sea water into fresh water? Why not bypass the whole process and simply take water from Lake Powell for drinking water? Don't make electricity and don't use electricity to make water. Too simple, I know! ...

I don't know about 'too simple', but it's wrong!

The water in a hydroelectric dam is not 'used'. All the water entering the dam comes out at the bottom. It's the weight of the water, the energy difference between water at the top of the dam and the bottom is what is turned into electricity.

That is why the height of the water ('head' in hydro terms) is important. It's why 'run of the river' plants won't produce much (they have their place, but it's limited).

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

One company not mentioned in that article (but unavailable for investing in the secondary market) is Radiant Nuclear. They are developing small, portable 1MW generators. Early use will be govt. and military, but I like to envision remote towns firing these up for the ultimate in grid resilience.

https://www.radiantnuclear.com/

Interesting. I've often wondered why smaller, modular Nukes are not used. It seems the scale is needed to be cost competitive, but it just seems like that size creates other cost complexities (but I assume they know what they are doing, so I just don't understand).

The nuke plants on a sub are obviously not that physically large, have a good track record (as far as we know!), and produce ~ 165 MW - (enough for ~ 80,000 homes on average?). That's maybe roughly 1/10th the output of a typical utility nuke plant ( ~ 1~2 GW?)

I'm not sure why these are not feasible for utilities. I think maybe they require highly refined fuel? Does that make them cost prohibitive? Obviously, the military is not always restrained by costs in the same way.

But a mobile 1MW unit sure would be helpful in emergencies like hurricanes or ice storms.

-ERD50

 

[NW-Bound]

... My gut says there are better ways to deal with water shortages than highly technical, highly energy-intensive water purification. On the other hand, if it's possible to desalinate using ONLY excess from renewables, it just might make sense. I have no idea how quickly one could shut down and then restart a desalinization plant that depended on excess PV or Windmill (etc.) output. Once "everyone" in the SW has their panels installed, there will be tons of excess e- during part of the day. YMMV

When talking about desalination, I often read that its energy cost is the major prohibitive factor. Yet, solar energy can often be so abundant and we have no place to put it. So why not use excess solar power when available to make some fresh water?

But when saying so, we laymen are neglecting the capital cost of the desalination equipment. It would be desirable to run the desalination plant 24/7 to make the most of the investment.

A plant also has maintenance costs that we don't know about. The desalination RO membrane does wear out, not differently than the residential RO filter in our homes. Various pre-RO filtering and water pre-treatment stages also have parts with limited life. I wonder how all other costs compare to the energy operating cost.

 

[SecondAttempt]

Also, at least within reasonable geographic areas, electricity is fungible. How much sense does it make to use precious Lake Powell water to create electricity to convert sea water into fresh water? Why not bypass the whole process and simply take water from Lake Powell for drinking water? Don't make electricity and don't use electricity to make water. Too simple, I know!

Colorado River water is already delivered as drinking (and ag) water through the Central Arizona Project. The very same water is used to generate power at Glen Canyon Dam (Lake Powell), Hoover Dam (Lake Mead), Davis Dam (Lake Mohave), and Parker Dam (Lake Havasu) before being diverted into canals that take it the Phoenix and Tucson and to agricultural lands in central Arizona.

For electricity there are trades made as well. Arizona is known as a summer peaking area (because a/c) while Colorado is winter peaking (heaters). So there are long distance transmission lines linking the areas. It's more complicated than that but I'm sure you get the idea.

Anyway, my calculation was done along the lines of "what would it take..." not that I think it is the best, or even a feasible idea.

The pumps to move the 1.4 million acre feet of water make the CAP the biggest power user in Arizona!

 

[SecondAttempt]

The nuke plants on a sub are obviously not that physically large, have a good track record (as far as we know!), and produce ~ 165 MW - (enough for ~ 80,000 homes on average?). That's maybe roughly 1/10th the output of a typical utility nuke plant ( ~ 1~2 GW?)

In 1982 the USS Indianapolis nuclear submarine, based in Pearl Harbor, sailed to Kauai to power the island after a hurricane. But they figured out a way to get the power plant operating again faster than the time it would take to connect the submaring to the distribution system on the island.

I would be surprised if there are not contingency plans for doing this in Hawaii if ever needed. On submarine each would be enough for each island but Oahu but I suspect an aircraft carrier could power Oahu.

 

[CyclingInvestor]

One company making money from nuclear power currently is BBU, a Brookfield company which owns Westinghouse, which services nearly half the nuclear power plants in the world, very profitably.

While BBU is currently only available as an LP, a Ccorp tracking stock (BBUC) is expected to be available by year-end, similar in structure to BEPC / BEP and BIPC / BIP.

 

[Gumby]

In 1982 the USS Indianapolis nuclear submarine, based in Pearl Harbor, sailed to Kauai to power the island after a hurricane. But they figured out a way to get the power plant operating again faster than the time it would take to connect the submaring to the distribution system on the island.

I would be surprised if there are not contingency plans for doing this in Hawaii if ever needed. On submarine each would be enough for each island but Oahu but I suspect an aircraft carrier could power Oahu.

I don't think a submarine could power any but the smallest of islands, as their ship's service turbine generators are sized to carry the electrical load of operating the boat, with an appropriate safety margin, but not much more. (most of the generated steam is used to drive the main engine, which turns the screw and propels the boat). To provide reverse shore power, you would still have to run the reactor and most of the associated machinery to generate that power. That all takes electricity. This author suggests that with current technology, a submarine could potentially supply 2.5 MW of electrical power to shore. Roughly enough for 1500 homes or one hospital. https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electri...ystems-spring-2006/projects/ship_to_shore.pdf

I believe that the purpose of sending the USS Indianapolis to Kauai in 1982 was simply to provide electrical power to "flash the field" on the generator at the local power station, so that it could restart itself. When a commercial power station goes completely dark, it generally cannot restart without the assistance of outside grid power. In that particular case, they managed to get a portable diesel generator delivered and online to perform the task.


Edit to address ERD's specific point: when the power output of a nuclear reactor is specified, it is generally the maximum thermal power that can be generated by the reactor. In the first instance, you need to generate steam with that thermal power so that you can spin turbines to generate electricity. Even the best steam plant is only ~ 30 - 33% efficient (and that is only possible if you use superheaters, which is not done in nuclear plants). Finally, as you note, to generate that much thermal power from such a small reactor requires highly refined fuel, much more refined than the fuel used in a present commercial nuclear power plant.

 

[ERD50]

... Edit to address ERD's specific point: when the power output of a nuclear reactor is specified, it is generally the maximum thermal power that can be generated by the reactor. In the first instance, you need to generate steam with that thermal power so that you can spin turbines to generate electricity. Even the best steam plant is only ~ 30 - 33% efficient (and that is only possible if you use superheaters, which is not done in nuclear plants). Finally, as you note, to generate that much thermal power from such a small reactor requires highly refined fuel, much more refined than the fuel used in a present commercial nuclear power plant.

Thanks for adding your experience to the thread. Always good to hear from those who have 'been there, done that', rather than just dry references.

The number I gave was the lower Electrical Power (MWe), not Thermal Power (MWt), and about 1/3rd as you say. But was "up to", and apparently includes much larger plants than the ones on the subs you were on. Though as you point out, the ship needs some (most?) of that power to keep the ship's systems running, which I suppose is considerable, even when docked. Though if you use the power plant on land, much of that goes away (just the power to run the plant itself).

... (most of the generated steam is used to drive the main engine, which turns the screw and propels the boat) ...

Hmmm, based on that, now I also wonder if that wiki article just did a math conversion from 500 MWt to 165 MWe, and didn't account for the heat that goes to the props? But for a land based system, they could still get the ~ 165 MWe out from the ~500 MWt, they'd just add more turbines connected to generators.

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

Reactor sizes range up to ~500 MWt (about 165 MWe) in the larger submarines and surface ships

So while a sub sized unit might not be large enough for a utility, it seems the largest ones the Navy uses could be a fit for a more distributed grid system, and still must be far smaller than a conventional land based nuke plant.

But maybe that refined fuel requirement is still a killer, economically?

-ERD50

 

[Gumby]

My brain fart earlier. The proper word for increasing the percentage of U-235 in fuel is "enriching" not "refining". As you might imagine, the cost of the fuel is proportional to the percent enrichment. There are also substantial national security concerns with highly enriched fuel, because it could possibly be stolen and used in nuclear weapons.

The USS Indianapolis (SSN-697), which was mentioned earlier, was a Los Angeles class submarine powered by an S6G reactor, which is rated at 150 MW thermal. Assuming a 33% efficiency, that means the maximum shaft horsepower (to drive the main propulsion turbines to turn the screw and to drive the ship service turbine generators to make electricity) is 150 MW x 0.33 x 1 hp/746 W = 66,353 hp. The two main propulsion turbines were rated at 30,0000 hp each, so that gives you an idea of how much was left for the turbine generators to make electricity to run the boat's systems.

Yes, the Navy runs far more powerful reactor plants on aircraft carriers, but they are also physically much larger than a submarine reactor plant. The Nimitz class carriers have two A4W reactors, each of which is rated at 550 MW thermal.

Note: my source for the equipment ratings are these Wikipedia articles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles-class_submarine), (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A4W_reactor), not anything I learned on active duty.

 

[SecondAttempt]

When I was a college student I had a job at a small company that built load banks used to test ship generators. Our only customer was the US Navy and most of our products went to Pearly Harbor. I think that is where I first heard the story about a submarine being used to power the island. My employment was in around 1985 so the timeline fits. The story about the Indianapolis I found by googling. I suspect what I heard at the time was a reference to the Indianapolic incident.

I understand it is an unlikely story and your explanation makes more sense (I'm not an EE bu have been and engineer for almost 40 years and have been around this kind of stuff so I have a general familiarity.)

I also found someone's MIT master's (?) thesis where a guy looked at the possibility of running a town from ship's power. According to him, there are no current (as of ~2006) US Navy ships that have this capability by design. But every Navy ship can run off shore power and there are a few instances where this capability was used to run one ship from another. In other words, the donor ship supplied "shore power" to the receiver ship with minimal modification. So it would seem plausible even if it has never been done.

 

[NW-Bound]

... This author suggests that with current technology, a submarine could potentially supply 2.5 MW of electrical power to shore. Roughly enough for 1500 homes or one hospital... https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electri...ystems-spring-2006/projects/ship_to_shore.pdf

... or to fast charge 25 EVs at a time at 100kW each.

Oahu has about 800,000 cars. If each car takes 1/2 hr to charge, it will take 667 days.

 

[NW-Bound]

I just saw an article with this headline: "California looks to natural gas to keep lights on this winter".

Nov 4 (Reuters) - After years of restricting the growth of fossil fuel infrastructure, California is looking to natural gas for power generation this coming winter after drought and wildfires leave the state with few other options to keep the lights on...

Hydropower's contribution to electricity is set to fall to just 5% in 2021, from a five-year average of 12%, while non-hydro renewables, mainly wind and solar, are expected to rise to 37%, government data shows.

Gas-fired power plants, meanwhile, will provide about 45% of the power generated in the state this year, up from the five-year (2016-2020) average of 41%, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

The drop in hydropower is due to the drought.

More details are here: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/california-looks-natural-gas-keep-050000539.html

 

[aja8888]

I just saw an article with this headline: "California looks to natural gas to keep lights on this winter".



The drop in hydropower is due to the drought.

More details are here: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/california-looks-natural-gas-keep-050000539.html

I wonder what California is going to do someday in the future when natural gas use is completely outlawed? I read somewhere recently that the Ca is mandating no more natural gas fired kitchen stoves for residential use. That would mean more electrical power would be needed unless people cook with wood stoves.

 

[NW-Bound]

It will require a lifestyle change. People will have to set the thermostat higher in the summer and lower in the winter, drive smaller and slower EVs, take cold showers, etc...

It's the same as people living on $200K/year who say that they cannot do with less, but I am sure that when push comes to shove, they will manage. People can endure more hardship than they can imagine. I know, I have been there.

 

[Koolau]

It will require a lifestyle change. People will have to set the thermostat higher in the summer and lower in the winter, drive smaller and slower EVs, take cold showers, etc...

It's the same as people living on $200K/year who say that they cannot do with less, but I am sure that when push comes to shove, they will manage. People can endure more hardship than they can imagine. I know, I have been there.

I have no crystal ball, but I predict that, at some point, Cali citizens will decide to alter their path to the green side. YMMV

 

[Gumby]

I wonder what California is going to do someday in the future when natural gas use is completely outlawed? I read somewhere recently that the Ca is mandating no more natural gas fired kitchen stoves for residential use. That would mean more electrical power would be needed unless people cook with wood stoves.

Similarly, burning natural gas in your furnace and using the heat directly to heat your home is substantially more energy efficient than burning natural gas at a powerplant, turning the heat into electricity, transmitting the electricity to your home and using resistive electric heating to heat your home. I fail to see how fewer greenhouse gases will be generated by banning the use of natural gas in homes.

 

[Koolau]

Similarly, burning natural gas in your furnace and using the heat directly to heat your home is substantially more energy efficient than burning natural gas at a powerplant, turning the heat into electricity, transmitting the electricity to your home and using resistive electric heating to heat your home. I fail to see how fewer greenhouse gases will be generated by banning the use of natural gas in homes.

Just one in a long line of inefficient solutions to the carbon issue. One of the frustrating things about the green movement (or whatever we're calling it these days) is that it seems to be about "Hey, we've got a serious problem. You guys gotta quit using fossil fuels." What we really need is a plan to integrate the various alternatives so that we CAN wean ourselves from FF - in a timely fashion but NOT by flipping a single switch. Simply "outlawing" a particular fuel throws folks into a tizzy, attempting to adjust. Why not create a "plan" that addresses all the issues.

In the Islands, solar PVs are a no-brainer. We get lots of sun. BUT, we can't seem to get any serious amount of it into the grid - especially when we need it towards evening AC usage. BUT solar hot-water production is also a no-brainer (here) and it IS used, but nothing like it could be if we had a "plan" (requiring, for instance, standards that would make it more bullet proof.)

Back to heating w/gas for a second. I saw a presentation 40 years ago about co-generation (electricity and heat) on-site - imagine the efficiency improvements in the upper midwest. Lots of issues, but no more so than outlawing fuels one at a time.

End of rant as YMMV.

 

[USGrant1962]

It will require a lifestyle change. People will have to set the thermostat higher in the summer and lower in the winter, drive smaller and slower EVs, take cold showers, etc...

It's the same as people living on $200K/year who say that they cannot do with less, but I am sure that when push comes to shove, they will manage. People can endure more hardship than they can imagine. I know, I have been there.

What you call a lifestyle change, many (most?) would call a lower standard of living.

 

[SecondAttempt]

In the Islands, solar PVs are a no-brainer. We get lots of sun. BUT, we can't seem to get any serious amount of it into the grid - especially when we need it towards evening AC usage. BUT solar hot-water production is also a no-brainer (here) and it IS used, but nothing like it could be if we had a "plan" (requiring, for instance, standards that would make it more bullet proof.)

The electric company killed solar in Hawaii by lobbying for eliminating net metering. Prior to that solar was growing like crazy.

Similarly, we have the volcano here on the big island that is even better than nuclear for heating water to steam yet we only have one tiny geothermal plant. We could be producing enough electricy for the entire state.

And we have reliable winds in the form of trade winds yet very little wind generators.

Matson also makes a lot of money hauling the fuel for the FF generators from the mainland.

It's politics not technology holding us back.

 

[NW-Bound]

Similarly, burning natural gas in your furnace and using the heat directly to heat your home is substantially more energy efficient than burning natural gas at a powerplant, turning the heat into electricity, transmitting the electricity to your home and using resistive electric heating to heat your home. I fail to see how fewer greenhouse gases will be generated by banning the use of natural gas in homes.

I think green proponents know the above. They just did not anticipate the plummet of hydro power due to the drought, or plan for lack of wind power on calm days, etc...

The whole problem with renewable energy is that we do not have sufficient storage, e.g. reservoirs for stored hydro power, or batteries to store power on bountiful days, and use it on low-wind overcast days.

Until people understand the above, they will keep demanding the unreasonable.

 

[NW-Bound]

In the Islands, solar PVs are a no-brainer. We get lots of sun. BUT, we can't seem to get any serious amount of it into the grid - especially when we need it towards evening AC usage. BUT solar hot-water production is also a no-brainer (here) and it IS used, but nothing like it could be if we had a "plan" (requiring, for instance, standards that would make it more bullet proof.)

Solar water heater is so easily done in Hawaii, due to no freezing. Even here in Phoenix, I had two nice solar panels on the roof going for 15 years, until one rare winter night when the temperature dropped below freezing, causing both of them to freeze and burst.

The panels had freeze sensors, and I was vigilant in maintaining the system through the years. I let my guard down one night, just before I took a flight to Europe the next day. No solar water heater no more. I was sad.

I now have an electric solar system with battery storage, and use the water heater as a dump load when the battery gets full. Generating electricity from PV panels then using it to run an electric water heater is not as efficient as a water panel, in terms of energy captured per square foot. However, electric wires are easier to run than water plumbing, plus the avoidance of the pesky freezing problem.