<The Oil Drum Celebrates 3M unique visits and 8M page views The Oil Drum ASPO-USA: Support for Global Energy Flow modelling and a Net Energy database>
<DrumBeat: October 31, 2006 DrumBeat DrumBeat: November 2, 2006>

272 comments on DrumBeat: November 1, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

Valuethinker on November 1, 2006 - 11:56am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Lead time for a 3rd gen reactor is supposed to be 5 years.

But the Finns, who are building the first one, are as much as 18 months behind, AFAIK.

So say 5 years+ 6 months, plus site planning.  In the UK a public planning enquiry (to make a like for like comparison with wind) which can add up to 3 years (but say 18 months).

I would say, realistically, on a crash programme, 8 years.  The French (EDF) at Flamanville, an existing site, are talking 2014 for commercial power from their first 3rd Gen reactor.

There is as yet no solution to the UK waste problem. Private industry has said it will not build these things without:

  •  a guaranteed power price (this is why British Energy went broke, and nearly had to be renationalised)
  • a long term solution to the waste problem

The former is no different from wind power (except: if we impute a CO2 price of £85/ tonne, £311/ tonne of carbon, which is what the Stern Report suggests, then the economics of both look good against fossil fuel).

Nuclear waste repository is a show stopper.

If we ran a centralised electricity system where the financial risk is passed off to the consumer, and if the nuclear reactor industry, the utility, and the regulator work closely together, then we would be France.  And we might get a sizeable nuclear reactor programme at a reasonable price.

So far, none of the above exist in the UK.  Nor would it be possible to renationalise the electricity supply system-- the Torys very specifically made sure that would be practically impossible for a future Labour Government (because Labour threatened to do just that).

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jim burke on November 1, 2006 - 12:32pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
After Seabrook, I don't think too many entities, corporate or government, will want to dive into that battle anytime soon. And if they did, there would certainly be no guarantees of eventual victory, no matter what the time line or costs.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Valuethinker on November 1, 2006 - 3:05pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
What the US utility execs have said is that they will go for nuclear, if they get a guaranteed subsidy for the power (which the Bush Energy Act gives them) and comfort on the waste disposal issue.

TXU has applied for nuclear.  Given that they have also applied to build 10 coal plants, I am cheering their nuclear efforts on.  Once those nuclear plants are switched on, they will be run, and will displace fossil fueled plant.

I think some US states (like Texas) will prove to be much more nuclear friendly than New England or New York.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
InfinitePossibilities on November 1, 2006 - 4:26pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
How long does it take until the holding tanks of those reactors are full and what will they do if there is still no processing plant built anywhere?

We have heard the nuclear argument before. We know what is missing. Nothing has changed with regard to processing and disposal.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Engineer-Poet on November 1, 2006 - 7:57pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Dry cask storage could hold spent fuel for decades, and it's only a few centuries before it's less radioactive than uranium ore.

Storage would be considerably less complicated due to the properties of thorium.  Th-232 captures a neutron and (through two beta decays) becomes U-233.  It takes another FOUR neutron captures to turn U-233 into U-237, which can decay into neptunium; another neutron capture is required to create Np-238 which decays to plutonium.  To get there, all the intermediates have to avoid being fissioned by any of the neutrons.  The consequence is that the spent fuel of a thorium reactor would have only minuscule amounts of plutonium.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
InfinitePossibilities on November 1, 2006 - 4:23pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Thanks for the rundown.

Nuclear is an alternative - with extemely heavy political brakes on. Until people can agree on what to do with the waste and that Pu is not evil if managed properly and fuel recycling is established (which would be economically devastating for Uranium mining...) nuclear is not a viable option.

And now we factor in the growth and projected price slump of PV... by the time nuclear lifts a leg, PV and conservation have run circles around the block.

In a year or two PV will deliver the equivalent of one nuclear reactor a year. At a 30% growth rate that looks like follows:

  1. 1.0 reactor, cumulative 2.0 reactors
  2. 1.3 reactors, cumulative 3.3 reactors
  3. 1.7 reactors, cumulative 5.0 reactors
  4. 2.2 reactors, cumulative 7.2 reactors
  5. 2.9 reactors, cumulative 10.1 reactors
  6. 3.7 reactors, cumulative 13.8 reactors
  7. 4.8 reactors, cumulative 18.6 reactors
  8. 6.2 reactors, cumulative 24.8 reactors
  9. 3.3 reactors, cumulative 28.1 reactors
  10. 8.2 reactors, cumulative 36.3 reactors
  11. 10.6 reactors, cumulative 46.9 reactors
  12. 13.8 reactors, cumulative 60.7 reactors
  13. 17.9 reactors, cumulative 78.6 reactors

Now add another 50 reactors saved by conservation measures.
Is the world going to build 130 new reactors until 2020?
And replacing the old ones is not even factored in, yet.

Which politician wants to run on the nucleat ticket?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
LevinK on November 1, 2006 - 5:52pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Two years back I was earning 10K/year, last year it was 20K and today I'm making 40. I find it self-evindent that in just 10 years I will be making $4.096 mln/year, which in 20 years will grow to well above 4 billion a year.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
plucky underdog on November 2, 2006 - 2:05am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Can you give a source for those numbers? This table...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics#Worldwide_installed_photovoltaic_totals

...shows what looks like about 1GWE (peak power) installed wordwide in 2005. That's about 1 reactor at peak, or maybe 30% of a reactor allowing for daily cycles and seasonality.

Are you numbers peak output or annual average?

Note that this source http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/electricity.html gives world electricity consumption of 14800E9 kWh in 2003. There are about 8000 hours in a year, so let's say a nice round CONSTANT 24/7/365 load of 2000 gigawatts. So by 2020, on your projections, solar PV could be producing 4% of the 2003 average demand (or 2% of 2020 demand on the EIA's estimate). Assuming the solar cells never age, of course. And assuming the supply chain doesn't get bottlenecked somewhere.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

272 comments on DrumBeat: November 1, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version