Practical Energy Discussion: Bring Back Nuclear To Abate Climate Change

[Toddsterpatriot]

How many deaths in the US civilian nuclear power industry?

0, relating to the nuclear reactor, radiation, or an event triggered by the reactor.

Hmmmm….sounds pretty safe.

 

[daveman]

I am fine with nuclear, though I would rather see more money put into coming up with a better grid option to make solar more practical and cheaper for end consumers to generate their own. Sort of a plug and play version of solar.

What does the grid need done to it to better enable people to generate their own solar?

Probably nothing in your mind. Solar is magic.

In reality, the grid is designed to distribute power from central generators to behind the meter consumption. It is not designed for behind the meter generation being sent back toward the current generators. Germany has a horrible problem shedding load on sunny, windy days--they have to pay someone to take the electricity off their grid to keep it from melting down. California's grid is already having related issues because of power fluctuations. The current grid is designed to pair generation with consumption in real time. There isn't any meaningful storage system as would be needed either behind the meter or in local microgrids to take the excess loads off in real time. In addition, the thing that everybody who is thinks solar is the magic bullet ignore is that standby power gets increasingly more expensive per kilowatt the more alternative energy is being put on the grid. It is part of the reason Germany has some of the most expensive electricity in the world. Edge generation can mitigate the need for new power generators, but it cannot totally replace the need for centralized 24/7/365 producers.

"Solar is magic"?

Ummm...no. I have experience in power generation and distribution. There is no magic. Save your condescension.

Home electricity producers have a ready solution to keeping excess power off the grid -- transfer switches. If the homeowner's means of production has the capacity to generate more power than the household needs, the transfer switch can be thrown to isolate the household from the grid. Or a switch can be used for peak shaving, transferring the household load to the homeowner's source when utility power is most expensive.

Germany may have to pay someone to take power off the grid, but it isn't necessarily the homeowner.

That means consumers are being paid to use the power, rather than the other way around.

This isn’t even the first time this has happened. According to one of Europe’s largest electricity trading exchanges (the EPEX Spot), it has happened more than 100 times in 2017.

All of this would seem to bode well for German households, long regarded as operating under the highest energy prices on the continent.

Well, not quite.

But someone else is getting paid.

And the whole matter has crucial implications for where the energy industry is going next…

Given the heavy amount of taxes and fees charged for power, the wholesale cost factors in only about 20% of the real price charged to the average residence.

That means that, while the period of negative costs helps, prices are still going up for German households.
​

That means government is making more money on power than the utilities are.

In the US, utilities are required by law to purchase power homeowners generate. But the homeowner doesn't have to sell it; not feeding into the grid greatly simplifies installation. Paralleling with an infinite bus is a tricky thing.

"Germany has a horrible problem shedding load on sunny, windy days--they have to pay someone to take the electricity off their grid to keep it from melting down."

I know what you meant to say, but you said it wrong. Load shedding is turning off devices that use electricity so the grid isn't damaged by too much current...like not running your clothes dryer on summer afternoons because air conditioners are running the grid at near capacity. Since many means of power generation can't be turned off immediately, any power generated in excess of grid demand must be load banked...something has to be turned on to use the power. Otherwise a generator running with no load is in danger of motorizing...it draws power instead of generating it, a situation called "reverse power". Safety circuits sense which direction current is going, into or out of the generator, and open its breaker when a reverse power situation is sensed. The prime mover -- the (usually) turbine spinning the alternator -- doesn't like to be unloaded all at once.

And while solar installation costs are falling every year, they're still prohibitively expensive. Average cost of solar install: $11,214 to $14,406 after solar tax credits. Call it $12,810.

What's the average household pay for electricity from a utility? $65.33 – $88.10. Call it $76.72.

How long would it take to be off the grid to pay for the solar system? 13 years, 27 days. What's the life expectancy of home solar panels? 20-30 years.

Not real attractive. It's a huge up-front investment, with not much return...and then you'll have to do it all again once the panels' efficiency drops down. And that doesn't include the cost of replacing the storage batteries, which have a life expectancy of 5-15 years.

Nope. Solar's not attractive at all.

 

[daveman]

I completely agree. The US Navy has had nuclear powered vessels for about 6 decades now and very few accidents have resulted. These boats go under the Arctic ice cap, through 30 foot seas, operate 24/7 in blasting heat, bitter cold, high winds, etc…

I would feel most comfortable if we were to license nuclear plants with one caveat:

You guys from PG&E, ConEd or NRG can charge whatever you want for the power, your plant will be operated by US Navy personnel. You won’t have employees, you won’t have strikes, you won’t have a health plan to administer or anything like that. You pay the DoD what you would be paying your staff and we supply the crew.

I’m sure that won’t ever happen but there should be a zero-bullshit-tolerance policy if we’re going to have private industry running these places.

The navy? Our nukes run great without the navy. The navy would fumble trying to operate something as large as a commercial nuclear power plant. The navy has zero experience with large scale nukes

That's why small modular reactors are so attractive.

 

[elektra]

That's why small modular reactors are so attractive.

I would prefer a reactor, sized for the city. Give or take. We certainly do not need a 100 reactors to supply southern california.

 

[daveman]

That's why small modular reactors are so attractive.

I would prefer a reactor, sized for the city. Give or take. We certainly do not need a 100 reactors to supply southern california.

Okay. They come in different sizes, y'know.

 

[candycorn]

I completely agree. The US Navy has had nuclear powered vessels for about 6 decades now and very few accidents have resulted. These boats go under the Arctic ice cap, through 30 foot seas, operate 24/7 in blasting heat, bitter cold, high winds, etc…

I would feel most comfortable if we were to license nuclear plants with one caveat:

You guys from PG&E, ConEd or NRG can charge whatever you want for the power, your plant will be operated by US Navy personnel. You won’t have employees, you won’t have strikes, you won’t have a health plan to administer or anything like that. You pay the DoD what you would be paying your staff and we supply the crew.

I’m sure that won’t ever happen but there should be a zero-bullshit-tolerance policy if we’re going to have private industry running these places.

The navy? Our nukes run great without the navy. The navy would fumble trying to operate something as large as a commercial nuclear power plant. The navy has zero experience with large scale nukes

Private industry has a spotty safety record at best.

How many deaths in the US civilian nuclear power industry?

None I think. Why?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I completely agree. The US Navy has had nuclear powered vessels for about 6 decades now and very few accidents have resulted. These boats go under the Arctic ice cap, through 30 foot seas, operate 24/7 in blasting heat, bitter cold, high winds, etc…

I would feel most comfortable if we were to license nuclear plants with one caveat:

You guys from PG&E, ConEd or NRG can charge whatever you want for the power, your plant will be operated by US Navy personnel. You won’t have employees, you won’t have strikes, you won’t have a health plan to administer or anything like that. You pay the DoD what you would be paying your staff and we supply the crew.

I’m sure that won’t ever happen but there should be a zero-bullshit-tolerance policy if we’re going to have private industry running these places.

The navy? Our nukes run great without the navy. The navy would fumble trying to operate something as large as a commercial nuclear power plant. The navy has zero experience with large scale nukes

Private industry has a spotty safety record at best.

How many deaths in the US civilian nuclear power industry?

None I think. Why?

Zero deaths doesn't sound incredibly unsafe.

 

[candycorn]

I completely agree. The US Navy has had nuclear powered vessels for about 6 decades now and very few accidents have resulted. These boats go under the Arctic ice cap, through 30 foot seas, operate 24/7 in blasting heat, bitter cold, high winds, etc…

I would feel most comfortable if we were to license nuclear plants with one caveat:

You guys from PG&E, ConEd or NRG can charge whatever you want for the power, your plant will be operated by US Navy personnel. You won’t have employees, you won’t have strikes, you won’t have a health plan to administer or anything like that. You pay the DoD what you would be paying your staff and we supply the crew.

I’m sure that won’t ever happen but there should be a zero-bullshit-tolerance policy if we’re going to have private industry running these places.

The navy? Our nukes run great without the navy. The navy would fumble trying to operate something as large as a commercial nuclear power plant. The navy has zero experience with large scale nukes

Private industry has a spotty safety record at best.

How many deaths in the US civilian nuclear power industry?

None I think. Why?

Zero deaths doesn't sound incredibly unsafe.

Ok

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The navy? Our nukes run great without the navy. The navy would fumble trying to operate something as large as a commercial nuclear power plant. The navy has zero experience with large scale nukes

Private industry has a spotty safety record at best.

How many deaths in the US civilian nuclear power industry?

None I think. Why?

Zero deaths doesn't sound incredibly unsafe.

Ok

Happy to help you with the facts.

 

[elektra]

Okay. They come in different sizes, y'know.

It is cheaper to build nice big ap1000's. Economy of size and standardization.

We have what we need, now.

 

[candycorn]

Private industry has a spotty safety record at best.

How many deaths in the US civilian nuclear power industry?

None I think. Why?

Zero deaths doesn't sound incredibly unsafe.

Ok

Happy to help you with the facts.

Now if you can only address the safety record:

Nuclear reactor accidents in the United States - Wikipedia

PS: There have been several deaths in the US Civilian Nuclear Power industry.
Happy to assist you with factual evidence.

 

[Decus]

The newest designs for nuclear electric plants, like molten salt reactors, are so safe that you could install one in your living room.

Newly designed nuclear is the only clean option for the production of electricity 24/7/365.

.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How many deaths in the US civilian nuclear power industry?

None I think. Why?

Zero deaths doesn't sound incredibly unsafe.

Ok

Happy to help you with the facts.

Now if you can only address the safety record:

Nuclear reactor accidents in the United States - Wikipedia

PS: There have been several deaths in the US Civilian Nuclear Power industry.
Happy to assist you with factual evidence.

What's wrong with the safety record?
Something like 20% of our power generation with zero fatalities due to the "nuclear" portion of nuclear power.

 

[elektra]

There have been several deaths in the US Civilian Nuclear Power industry.
Happy to assist you with factual evidence.

Using your criteria for deaths, it can be said the Navy's record is outright dismal.

Yet, your link explicitly states that there have zero deaths associated with a commercial nuclear power reactor? No deaths handling fuel. No deaths doing maintenance to the reactor. No deaths in the reactor building? No deaths as a result of radiation.

You do know that the navy does not do maintenance on their reactors?

That is performed by civilians. Same civilians that do the maintenance on commercial nuclear reactors.

 

[daveman]

There have been several deaths in the US Civilian Nuclear Power industry.
Happy to assist you with factual evidence.

Using your criteria for deaths, it can be said the Navy's record is outright dismal.

Yet, your link explicitly states that there have zero deaths associated with a commercial nuclear power reactor? No deaths handling fuel. No deaths doing maintenance to the reactor. No deaths in the reactor building? No deaths as a result of radiation.

You do know that the navy does not do maintenance on their reactors?

That is performed by civilians. Same civilians that do the maintenance on commercial nuclear reactors.

Okay, civilians maintain Navy reactors. And the Navy writes the standards to which the work is to be performed. Regardless if the civilians are DoD civilians or contractors, the Navy writes the standards.

 

[daveman]

Okay. They come in different sizes, y'know.

It is cheaper to build nice big ap1000's. Economy of size and standardization.

We have what we need, now.

And when one plant goes down, the entire city is out of power because the grid will have a hard time picking up the slack.

If generation is decentralized, and a neighborhood-sized plant goes down, the grid can pick it up easily.

 

[Mr Natural]

Nuclear power is like air travel.

Everything is fine until something goes wrong.

 

[daveman]

Nuclear power is like air travel.

Everything is fine until something goes wrong.

Coal power is like air travel.

Hydroelectric power is like air travel.

Wind power is like air travel.

Everything is fine until something goes wrong.

Nothing is without risk.

 

[elektra]

And when one plant goes down, the entire city is out of power because the grid will have a hard time picking up the slack.

If generation is decentralized, and a neighborhood-sized plant goes down, the grid can pick it up easily.

right now the grid supplies power from phoenix, to los angelos, with no problem. How is that a problem if we power los angeles with Nuclear Power. Further, California imports power from coal burning plants in Wyoming, so again, how is the grid a problem? It is not. And, further, today, a Nuclear power plant built 30 years ago will operate for 500 days straight without going down! So again, the problem you invented, is not based on reality. Even when San Onofre Units 2 and 3 were shutdown, there was no interruption of power.

gee, that was not so hard to knock down your comment, maybe next time......

 

[elektra]

Nuclear power is like air travel.

Everything is fine until something goes wrong.

really? nuclear power is like air travel? name the two accidents this year at nuclear power plants that killed 100's?