Nuclear Investing?

[Gumby]

Pumped hydro storage is still the only massive-scale energy storage today. Nothing else even comes close.

The flywheel energy storage systems (FESS) are typically small-scale, and practical systems store a mere 6kWh with a lot of complications.

See: https://energystorage.org/why-energy-storage/technologies/flywheel-energy-storage-systems-fess/

Heat storage has been used for solar thermal plants, where molten salt stores the heat to generate steam to drive turbines for a few hours of operation after sunset. There are a few such plants in operation in Spain. A Spanish company built the Solana plant in Gila Bend, AZ. Thermal storage capacity of the Solana plant is 1500 MWh. Solana plant is about 60 mi south from where I live.

Thermal solar plants like the Solana are not cheap to operate. APS has a contract to buy power from Solana at a price of 14c/kWh, in order the meet the RE mandate. This price is high, compared to the usual 4c to 7c/kWh for wholesale electricity.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solana_Generating_Station

Thanks for the information. I was entirely unaware that my idle musings while in the shower have actually been tried somewhere.

 

[SecondAttempt]

Why haven't more Hawaiians do this? Perhaps not too many people have a single-family home with a large enough roof. Or maybe they do not use much electricity due to mild climate, hence do not care.

It's a mixed story. A lot of people do have solar. But large swaths of the Big Island where I live use rainwater catchment so you need a separate racking system for the panels and a large area of dedicated land tha tyou have to keep cleared. You don't want panel chemicals leaching into your water supply.

Plus, a lot of people don't want to live where it is sunny (and hot) all he time so much of the population lives where there is a lot more cloud and rain than you might expect.

Still, you are right, it should be a cost saver but I have twice gotten quotes and they always show long payback periods even with the tax subsidies.

To put thinks in perspective, even though electric rates are 3 times higher here than in Arizona, my typical bill is only bout 25-50% higher. That means I must be using less power.

 

[NW-Bound]

Thanks for the information. I was entirely unaware that my idle musings while in the shower have actually been tried somewhere.

Any apparatus that we can think of is most likely conceived of long ago. For example, as a kid in the 60s, I read about the design of a thermal solar plant which exactly described how the Solana plant operates today. The article described how one would use parabolic trough mirrors to concentrate the solar ray, in order to heat the pipe in which the molten salt is circulated.

Conceptually many things are simple, but when one considers all the physical aspects for the idea to work, he is faced with constraints which then guide him into certain directions to go, if he wants a reasonable chance of success.

Much ballyhoo was given to Musk's idea of the Hyperloop, but I also read about it a long time ago. The article I read during the energy crisis in the late 1970s, in either IEEE Spectrum or Proceedings of the IEEE, recounted a much earlier concept of pods traveling at high speed in a vacuum tube. I don't remember when this idea originated, but it was old even back in the 70s.

This article also pointed out all the difficulties of building such a system, which Musk never addressed and showed that he had a solution for. And surely enough, nothing much has come of this Hyperloop thingy. Being able to foresee the technical obstacles that one has to solve to carry out an idea is the difference between an engineer and a science fiction writer.

 

[SecondAttempt]

Again, it's mind boggling how much energy the US uses.

But getting back to the thread title, we have the capability to produce as much energy as we want through nuclear. We just have two/three problems to solve:

- What to do with the waste
- How to (regulate to) make it safe
- How to deregulate to make it viable

Regarding the last 2, there are numerous areas where the government has regulated away risk in the name of economic development for the public good in the past. The Kelly Act and other laws led to US leadership in aviation by giving airlines mail contracts in exchange for accepting safety regulations. More recently, electric vehicle manufacturers are getting liability protection to facilitate innovation. One could argue our tech leadership by firms like Facebook result from liability shielding.

I'm not expressing agreement or disagreement with any of the above. I'm just saying that maybe a creative and productive approach to accepting risks to facilitate a public good might take nuclear things forward and solve many of our energy and unmentionable related problems.

Waste? The nasty stuff was already in the ground radiating. We just dug it up and concentrated it. Maybe the solution to pollution is dilution. Yeah, I know it is a little more complicated but not that much more complicated.

 

[SecondAttempt]

Conceptually many things are simple, but when one considers all the physical aspects for the idea to work, he is faced with constraints which then guide him into certain directions to go, if he wants a reasonable chance of success.

Unfortunately many prognosticators don't understand a few simple rules. (I am not saying you are one of them because I suspect you are not.)

For example, the efficiency of many processes including the internal combustion engine (ICE) depend on the Carnot equation developed in the early 1800s, efficiency = 1-Tc/Th where Tc is the cold temperature in the cycle and Th is the hottest. For and ICE the coldest is essientially ambient temperature and the hottest is the exhaust gas temperature. We can't do much about ambient but better materials for engines on the hot side has led to most efficency advances. Sure, recapturing energy through regenerative braking and improving other efficiencies is good too but there is only so much you can do for the engine itself without better materials.

That's also why I am somewhat skeptical of low-temperature-difference technologies - not that they don't work but it seems like basic laws of thermodynamics limits their efficiency.

Something like solar, wind, or wave energy where you are just capturing energy that is otherwise lost to heat or entropy is one thing, but actually improving efficiency of a system is pretty tough when you have to deal with the physics police!

 

[NW-Bound]

But getting back to the thread title, we have the capability to produce as much energy as we want through nuclear. We just have two/three problems to solve...

I don't know much about nuclear technology, nor the process of mining and refining the fuel from the ground to know about all the hazards associated with this technology. I just took a detour to look at what it takes to replace fossil fuel with wind and solar, and what is in our toolbox right now comes up short in the area of storage. That's what we absolutely need to tame the variability of wind and solar power.

In a way, I was basically trying to see the validity of the proposal set forth by others who said we cannot wean ourselves from fossil fuel without the help of nuclear energy. And it appears that they are right.

It will take some more years of trying with renewable energy before people give up, and reconsider nuclear energy. To be fair to the OP, whose post has a link to a couple of names in the nuclear power industry (CCJ, UEC, UUUU), an investor may find it worthwhile to keep an eye on these.

The above 3 are all uranium miners though. What are other names in this industry, in the business of reactor and plant building? I only know of Westinghouse.

Again, it will be a while before the public attitude changes, and accepts nuclear energy again. It will take a few sweltering summers without AC, and some cold and dark winters. Or perhaps someone will invent a wonderful battery, and we all live happily forever after.

 

[Out of Steam]

Again, it will be a while before the public attitude changes, and accepts nuclear energy again. It will take a few sweltering summers without AC, and some cold and dark winters. Or perhaps someone will invent a wonderful battery, and we all live happily forever after.

The problem with nuclear is almost entirely economic, not safety. No private company or investor can finance a plant that takes 15+ years to build, tying up $10-20 billion by the time the first kWh is produced. The plant would be written off a unprofitable due to price fluctuations a half-dozen times before completion. Therefore, all of them would have to be built under Federal contracts or profit guarantees, with all the inefficiencies that adds.

As for the price, to reach 75% of US electric demand would take 400 new plants at $20 billion each. Like oil, gas, and electrical transmission infrastructure, if they were economically feasible and profitable, nuclear plants would be built regardless of public opposition.

The fact is also that we in the US have become rather incompetent at megaprojects in the past 30 years. As a nation, we do much better with smaller, distributed efforts. Smaller, factory built nuclear reactors may be more suitable for the US.

 

[NW-Bound]

... Like oil, gas, and electrical transmission infrastructure, if they were economically feasible and profitable, nuclear plants would be built regardless of public opposition.

The fact is also that we in the US have become rather incompetent at megaprojects in the past 30 years. As a nation, we do much better with smaller, distributed efforts. Smaller, factory built nuclear reactors may be more suitable for the US.

Ugh, I dunno. Don't underestimate the NIMBY attitude.

I still say it will take many miserable hot summers, cold and dark winters, plus immobilized EVs, before people will allow a cute little nuclear reactor within 100 miles of their home.

I don't know about the nuclear technology itself, but I know something about the public sentiment. Many of them are still very leery of cellular towers down the street, yet have no problem holding a cell phone in their hand.

In my neck of the woods, the utility company proposed building a small peaking generator running on nat gas. It will be situated where there's already a substation with transformers. They promised to have it walled in, trees planted around the perimeter so it would not be an eyesore and all that aesthetics. The people said "Hell no!". And that's that.

 

[Out of Steam]

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 don't believe that anyone is seriously proposing using resistance electric instead of natural gas. Rather, the idea is to use heat pumps, the best of which (even air source) can meet heat demand down to 0ºF or lower.

 

[Out of Steam]

Ugh, I dunno. Don't underestimate the NIMBY attitude.

I still say it will take many miserable hot summers, cold and dark winters, plus immobilized EVs, before people will allow a cute little nuclear reactor within 100 miles of their home.

I don't know about the nuclear technology itself, but I know something about the public sentiment. Many of them are still very leery of cellular towers down the street, yet have no problem holding a cell phone in their hand.

In my neck of the woods, the utility company proposed building a small peaking generator running on nat gas. It will be situated where there's already a substation with transformers. They promised to have it walled in, trees planted around the perimeter so it would not be an eyesore and all that aesthetics. The people said "Hell no!". And that's that.

For all the attention to NIMBY, it’s a modest number of middle-class and richer neighborhoods where it is an issue. We seem to have no difficulty in dropping hazards into the middle of poorer areas, whether urban or rural.

As someone who turned down a house that was almost a mile from a railroad yard because of low-frequency noise from idling engines, those sort of noises are insanity-producing to many of us.

 

[mpeirce]

I don't believe that anyone is seriously proposing using resistance electric instead of natural gas. Rather, the idea is to use heat pumps, the best of which (even air source) can meet heat demand down to 0ºF or lower.

They can work well in pretty cold areas (I have one), but they are quite a bit more expensive to purchase.

Also the efficiency decreases as the temperature goes down. It’s all trade offs.

 

[Out of Steam]

They can work well in pretty cold areas (I have one), but they are quite a bit more expensive to purchase.

Also the efficiency decreases as the temperature goes down. It’s all trade offs.

The better ones are expensive, but even the inexpensive one in our house can meet demand without any backup to 27 degrees F. For that capability, the extra cost over a central air conditioner is modest.

 

[SecondAttempt]

Ugh, I dunno. Don't underestimate the NIMBY attitude.

I still say it will take many miserable hot summers, cold and dark winters, plus immobilized EVs, before people will allow a cute little nuclear reactor within 100 miles of their home.

A long time ago, like back in the 80s I read that radiation levels outside of coal plants were much higher than the limits around nuclear plants. This was not an anti-coal claim. Everyone loved coal back then. It was just that, like everything that comes from the ground, coal has some small natural radioactivity and the big piles of stored coal radiated a small amount. Nuclear plants on the otherhand, had really tight restrictions.

I don't know if this is true but it makes sense to me. Rather than solve the problem with science we have let fear and ignorance scare us away from the best method to solve our long term energy needs.

 

[Gumby]

A long time ago, like back in the 80s I read that radiation levels outside of coal plants were much higher than the limits around nuclear plants. This was not an anti-coal claim. Everyone loved coal back then. It was just that, like everything that comes from the ground, coal has some small natural radioactivity and the big piles of stored coal radiated a small amount. Nuclear plants on the otherhand, had really tight restrictions.

I don't know if this is true but it makes sense to me. Rather than solve the problem with science we have let fear and ignorance scare us away from the best method to solve our long term energy needs.

You are correct. Here is a decent article on the radioactivity of coal fly ash. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

...
It will take some more years of trying with renewable energy before people give up, and reconsider nuclear energy. To be fair to the OP, whose post has a link to a couple of names in the nuclear power industry (CCJ, UEC, UUUU), an investor may find it worthwhile to keep an eye on these.

The above 3 are all uranium miners though. What are other names in this industry, in the business of reactor and plant building? I only know of Westinghouse.

.....

One possibility is Centrus Energy Corp (ticker = LEU), formerly known as USEC (United States Enrichment Corp), which is the only company in the United States that enriches uranium to produce fuel for naval reactors and commercial power plants. If nuclear power sees a renaissance, LEU should do well. It is up almost 300% this year. 25% in the past week alone.

 

[NW-Bound]

^^^ Show that to people, and they will not be convinced.

It's the same as people not being afraid of inflation, compared to the risk of buying stocks.

One has a gradual effect, even if severe. The other, they are afraid that it may blow up.

 

[leftyfrizzell1963]

... some investors, like Gates and Buffett, claim that nukes are a safer energy source than wind or solar.

Nuclear reactors may be "safer than in the past", but there is no way they are safer than wind/solar. A wind or solar farm can't melt down spewing radiation into the atmosphere. A wind or solar farm doesn't generate radioactive toxic waste that nobody wants within thousands of miles of themselves (NIMBY), and by the way, they speculate it will finally breakdown within a mere 1,000 years. It might be a safer investment, but it is ludicrous to say it is safer environmentally.

 

[ERD50]

... If nuclear power sees a renaissance, LEU should do well. It is up almost 300% this year. 25% in the past week alone.

Interesting. I wonder if this a sign that investors think it might be starting to click with the general public that a fast pace to renewables just isn't going to happen in the way some idealists would like? Reality is starting to hit that we will need natural gas and nukes for a long time yet?

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

Nuclear reactors may be "safer than in the past", but there is no way they are safer than wind/solar. A wind or solar farm can't melt down spewing radiation into the atmosphere. A wind or solar farm doesn't generate radioactive toxic waste that nobody wants within thousands of miles of themselves (NIMBY), and by the way, they speculate it will finally breakdown within a mere 1,000 years. It might be a safer investment, but it is ludicrous to say it is safer environmentally.

I take it you have not researched this. Check the BLS (Bureau of Labor and Statistics) site, I think you would be surprised how much more dangerous wind/solar are, when measured apples-apples (amount of power delivered).

I'll agree with you that nuke has the potential for a wider spread bad/worst case scenario. But things must be put in perspective. How many died in Japan from the effects of the Tsunami? How many died from the nuclear plant disaster there?

People died/drown after building collapsed on them - do we say we can't have buildings, they are dangerous in a Tsunami event?

And more specific to the comment you quoted and responded to:

Originally Posted by rtroxel View Post
... some investors, like Gates and Buffett, claim that nukes are a safer energy source than wind or solar.

Well, as you will find out with some research, it's not just a "claim" - it is a fact.

-ERD50

 

[Gumby]

Nuclear reactors may be "safer than in the past", but there is no way they are safer than wind/solar. A wind or solar farm can't melt down spewing radiation into the atmosphere. A wind or solar farm doesn't generate radioactive toxic waste that nobody wants within thousands of miles of themselves (NIMBY), and by the way, they speculate it will finally breakdown within a mere 1,000 years. It might be a safer investment, but it is ludicrous to say it is safer environmentally.

A little heated on the rhetoric, don't you think? Yes, a nuclear core can melt down. There have been three such episodes in the past 42 years -- Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. Except for Chernobyl, which is a totally different reactor design than current commercial light water reactors, no one has been harmed by the radiation released as a consequence. Also, the fact that radioactive waste storage is unpopular doesn't ipso facto make it unsafe; people are afraid of many things they should not fear. And, by the way, the decay of radioactive waste is not a matter of speculation, it is a matter of physics. We know the half-life of every radioactive waste product and can calculate the time precisely.

That said, you are correct that solar and wind do not face these issues at all. But they do have their own challenges, the prime ones being that they are not dispatchable, are variable in electrical output and don't work at all when the sun isn't shining and/or the wind isn't blowing. So you will always need baseload and reserve power plants, even on sunny and windy days. You'll also need some way to make it through the non-windy and non-sunny periods. As was discussed at length above, there is no current energy storage technology that can solve that problem. Which means that you'll continue to need another source of power besides wind and solar. Currently, your other non-nuclear choices are coal fired, gas fired or oil fired. The emissions from all those fuels contribute to climate change and have other negative effects on the environment, and their extraction has killed multiple orders of magnitude more people than were killed at Chernobyl.

Finally, it seems to me that effects on the environment are only one aspect of "safer". For example, if I have a hospital with many people on life support machines, or a subway system that constantly relies on electric pumps to keep the system from flooding, or an air traffic control tower, a "safe" power supply is a reliable power supply, one that works even at night and on calm overcast days.

In my opinion, we need a planned, integrated approach to our need for safe, reliable electric power. No one technology will completely solve our problems and none should be excluded from consideration.

 

[Koolau]

In my opinion, we need a planned, integrated approach to our need for safe, reliable electric power. No one technology will completely solve our problems and none should be excluded from consideration.

Yep. This has been my point. We DO have lots of tools to reduce the use of FF but SOMEONE has to figure how to integrate all the various tools into a reliable "grid" at a cost, not too much higher than now. As well, we need to get the politics out of it. So, basically, we are screwed.

 

[NW-Bound]

Maybe things are starting to happen.

Tue, November 16, 2021

TerraPower, the Bill Gates-founded nuclear power venture, announced Tuesday plans to replace a Wyoming coal-fired power station with a $4 billion advanced reactor demonstration project.

Roughly half of the project's funding will come from the U.S. government...

TerraPower will build the 345-megawatt facility at the site of the Naughton coal plant in Kemmerer, Wyoming, about 130 miles northeast of Salt Lake City, pending federal and local approval...

See: https://news.yahoo.com/bill-gates-terrapower-build-4-062833314.html

 

[Koolau]

^^^^^^

Maybe things are starting to happen.



See: https://news.yahoo.com/bill-gates-terrapower-build-4-062833314.html

What do we think are the chances this will actually come to fruition? Just because the state and the US gummint are on board does not mean the environmentalists won't find a way to kill the project.

A couple of years back, a local group all but shut down a project to build (wait for it)... a dozen or so windmills. Their stated "issue" was that it might disturb burial grounds. Of course, on an Island with an 800 to 1400 year history and limited actual soil (as opposed to volcanic rock), anyplace you stick a shovel is likely to come up with ancient remains. IIRC there was a year's delay in building our first Sams/Walmart when they found remains.

The environmentalists are more numerous and better funded than native peoples groups. I give the project less than 50/50 of ever being completed but, as usual, YMMV.

 

[NW-Bound]

^^^^^^

What do we think are the chances this will actually come to fruition? Just because the state and the US gummint are on board does not mean the environmentalists won't find a way to kill the project.

A couple of years back, a local group all but shut down a project to build (wait for it)... a dozen or so windmills. Their stated "issue" was that it might disturb burial grounds. Of course, on an Island with an 800 to 1400 year history and limited actual soil (as opposed to volcanic rock), anyplace you stick a shovel is likely to come up with ancient remains. IIRC there was a year's delay in building our first Sams/Walmart when they found remains.

The environmentalists are more numerous and better funded than native peoples groups. I give the project less than 50/50 of ever being completed but, as usual, YMMV.

The project is said to employ more than 2,000 people for the construction. Once in operation, it will employ 250 people.

And this plant is built to replace a coal plant destined for shutdown. Think of the newly unemployed coal plant workers.

We will see the locals battling with the environmentalists. I don't know who will win the public support. It all depends on how the public can cope with cold and dark winters, with EVs parked for lack of charge.

Of course, this will take a few years to play out.

 

[Koolau]

The project is said to employ more than 2,000 people for the construction. Once in operation, it will employ 250 people.

And this plant is built to replace a coal plant destined for shutdown. Think of the newly unemployed coal plant workers.

We will see the locals battling with the environmentalists. I don't know who will win the public support. It all depends on how the public can cope with cold and dark winters, with EVs parked for lack of charge.

Of course, this will take a few years to play out.

I have one word for you (well, two): Marble Hill. (see https://abandonedonline.net/location/marble-hill-nuclear-power-plant/)

My RadBio class was allowed to watch the setting of one of the two reactors back ca 1982(?) The plant looked all but "operational." Oddly, the cooling towers were NOT the traditional Three-Mile-Island style (mega-concrete towers). There were several 1/4 mile-long dog-house style towers that would have looked at home at a coal fired plant. These were much more expensive, but it was explained to the class that they didn't "look like" the typical nuke.

I thought it was funny - if you read to the end of the article - when they tried to blow up the containment buildings many years later, it didn't work. Traditional explosives were not powerful enough. I guess the environmentalists were right. Those containment buildings WERE defective. You couldn't blow them up.

But I think you had it right about waiting. When folks turn on the switch and nothing comes out, they'll tell the environmentalists to go fish. Until then, whoever screams the loudest has the power (and I don't mean nuclear or electric.) But this is all speculation on my part so YMMV.

 

[SecondAttempt]

Fundamentally, the US Navy has been using nuclear power safely for 60 years. It can be done. And the military is all about following regulations. Maybe they can teach us how to save the world.