[gary]

Hi James,

If you are not trolling and really genuinely do want to know why
nuclear power is not looking like a good option at this point in time,
I would be happy to share what I know.

Your question is also unfortunately loaded with a couple of false
premises regarding solar being "much too expensive" and wind generation
being "pathetic", which again if you are not trolling and really are
genuinely interested, I can provide you with some recent power industry
figures which may come as a pleasant surprise.

In the last couple of days, I posted here on IceInSpace on the state of
the nuclear power industry, but I will reproduce it here to save having
to click on the link.

Originally Posted by gary

2018 has been a sobering lesson in how expensive the construction of state-of-the-art nuclear power stations can be.

So much so that Westinghouse Electric* filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in March, because of US$9 billion losses from nuclear power plant construction projects.

Their AP1000 reactor which was designed to passively cool itself after an accidental shutdown was seen as the solution in a post-Fukushima nuclear reactor market.

But three decades of highly skilled engineering, regulatory reviews and construction later, the AP1000 is yet to generate a watt of power.

A pair of AP1000's being built in South Carolina were abandoned after costs spiralled from US$10 billion to an eye-watering US$25 billion.

Meanwhile, a pair of AP1000's being built in China have suffered several engineering shortfalls.

The blades on the circulation pumps that are crtical to the reactors safety would stop spinning too quickly after the power was shut off, before the signature passive cooling could kick in.

There were leaks in the steam pipes exiting one of the reactor vessels.

Meantime a glut in power in China may not make either reactor ever economically viable in the market and so economies of scale for the reactors may never come about.

The missed deadlines and cost overruns have lead to the conclusion by many in the industry that the rapid growth of nuclear power has peaked and is now a thing of the past.

As at today, the costs of renewables has plumetted making them the current choice for the lowest $/kW in Australia.

Elsewhere in the world, such as Europe, the United States and China, renewables have become ubiquitous.

For example, in 2015 there was a solar eclipse over parts of Europe that resulted in a 18GW dip and 25GW rise in the amount of power in the grid just from solar alone.

25GW is equivalent to the output of about 18 nuclear power plants fully ramped up.

Currently there is about 84GW of solar deployed in Europe, equivalent to the output of about 60 nuclear reactors.

The current cost to just build that many AP1000-class nuclear reactors would run at around AUD 1 trillion.

Everyone wants cheap power in Australia. But the rest of the world is facing the same experience. And it will get cheaper.

But if by "cheap" you mean the types of prices we paid per kW/hr decades ago, it is not going to happen at this point in time.

The reason is that the existing coal power plants have come to the end of their lives. Like an old car, they have reached the end of the road.
So even if there wasn't the requirement to urgently decrease CO2 outputs, they would need replacing anyway.

So either way we go, there are a lot of capital replacement costs at the moment but they will be amortized over time.

But unless you have very deep pockets and are willing to throw a lot of money at improving reactor designs for the benefit of the rest of the world,
nuclear power in Australia would be the most expensive option.

Westinghouse Electric would appreciate it though. They are looking for a willing buyer to take them out of bankruptcy.

As a further footnote to the above original post, as at this year
the French state-owned Électricité de France (EDF), which is the biggest
operator of nuclear power plants in Europe, is also in debt.

Meantime Areva, which is a French nuclear reactor design company,
has been making multi-billion Euro losses just about every year since 2011.

EDF are in the process of bailing them out by buying their reactor business.

And in Japan, Toshiba, which also has a giant nuclear engineering division
and who is also the parent company of Westinghouse Electric, is also
in financial trouble and there are concerns that it may not be able to
continue as a going concern.

As at March, Toshiba were looking at posting losses of around 1 Trillion
Yen owing to the losses in its nuclear power business and sadly were
going to have to sell their profitable core semiconductor business in order
to erase the debt and to help its financial standing.

On a personal note, I would be very sad to see Toshiba ever go under.


With regards wind and solar prices, you might be interested in reading
this post I also made in the last couple of days where I am quoting
Dr Alex Wonhas, Managing Director, Energy, Resources and Manufacturing
at Aureco here in Australia :-

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...0&postcount=28

Or if you prefer, you might like to read the original article from which
I took the quotes which appeared in last month's edition of "Energy
Source & Distribution" magazine :-
http://en.calameo.com/read/000373495bf3aeb336dc6/12

Originally Posted by Energy Source & Distribution, Dr. Wonhas

Based on current costs, Dr Wonhas says ‘clean coal’ is a more expensive option on a pure energy basis than renewables.

“What see clean coal, or ultra supercritical coal, sit at around $80/MWh with 700-800kg of CO2 emissions per MWh,” he explains.

“A combined cycle gas turbine might produce power at about $100MWh – obviously its cost depend on the gas price so this is for about $10 per gigajoule, which is where the market is at the moment. Its emissions are around half that of coal, at about 400-500kg of CO2 per MWh.

“Solar has become quite competitive with maybe $75 per MWh, followed by wind with around $60 per MWh. So renewables are lower-cost than some of the conventional generation technologies on an energy only basis.”

Of course when discussing the cost of different technologies, Dr Wonhas says it is important to not leave out storage.

“What we are seeing in the market at the moment is maybe $750 per kWh for a battery system optimised for long-term storage on a full EPC basis, and maybe $1500 per kWh or more for a battery system that is more optimised towards providing short-term outputs and lower storage intervals,” Dr Wonhas explains.

“It’s quite instructive to compare that to pumped hydro, since the Prime Minister’s announcement of Snowy Hydro 2.0 has been a lot in the press. When you take some of the publically available data, and say well, it is $2 billion for 2GW of capacity, then you probably have to add another $2 billion for the necessary transmission system upgrades – that gives you maybe $250 per kWh for an 8 hour storage capacity.

“This is about a third of what you would pay for a battery system today. However the costs of battery systems are continually coming down so it will be interesting to see by how much battery costs will have reduced over the 4 years plus it will take to build Snowy Hydro 2.0.”

Aurecon has been delivering specialist and technical engineering advice for some of the country’s biggest and most exciting storage projects – including the South Australian government’s 100MW lithium-ion battery, and Territory Generation’s 5MW Batttery Energy Storage System (BESS) in Alice Springs

So in summary - this year has not been a good one for the nuclear power
industry to the point that many of those within it are themselves speculating
whether the industry has reached a turning point.

The good news however is that the cost of renewables has plummeted
globally make them some of the cheapest electricity sources available.

In your original post, you were citing the years 2050 and 2060.
That is still 32 and 42 years in the future which is a lot or time in terms
of the likely technological advancements that may take place between
now and then.

To remind ourselves how long 42 years is, in 1933 you have
King Kong holding onto Fay Wray and fighting off biplanes.
42 years later the jumbo jet has already been operational
for six years and the last men to walk on the Moon had lifted off from
it two years earlier.

So despite the urgency of reducing CO2 emissions now, a lot of
technological development can take place in that period of time
that we can only speculate about today.

By way of example, if you had a crystal ball and told me that in
the coming decades, intercontinental HVDC (High Voltage Direct Current)
submarine cables were connecting power grids across the world,
I wouldn't be surprised.

When you hear HVDC, think half a million or perhaps 1 million volts.

HVDC is already being deployed in places such as China and
Europe and provides the potential for grid stability and energy trading on
a global scale. Though the development of HVDC is nearly 50 years old,
advances in building large semiconductors make it possible
to transit power over very large distances with very little resistive
losses.

See for example ABB (ASEA Brown Boveri) document here for some light background

Using technology such as HVDC, if you look at the burgeoning market
for electricity in South East Asia and the sub-continent alone, there might
be an opportunity for Australia to become a net electricity
exporter. Perhaps wind turbines generating power in Bass Strait may
be earning income for the state of Tasmania by providing electricity
directly to Singapore, Bangkok and Taipei.

HVDC links also allow current flow in either direction, so if the
wind isn't blowing in some part of the country, then over continental
and intercontinental distances, chances are it will be blowing there
or a utility some vast distance away will have power to trade.

* Footnote. Westinghouse Electric built the first hydro-electric power plant in 1895 in Niagara Falls

* Footnote. One of the reasons solar cell power generation
has become so efficient and affordable is in part owing to major
contributions to the technology made starting in the early 1970's to
the present by an Australian who has been dubbed ""the father of photovoltaics".


Best Regards

Gary Kopff
Member, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), 39 years