Sequestering CO2 from the atmosphere.......

[realibrad]

The Canadians, Brits, and increasingly Europe are all looking at similarly high costs for new unit construction. That is a prime reason why Canada, for example, abandoned building new units and instead decided to refurbish Darlington for the still impressive price of more than $2B per unit. The economics of new plants compared to alternatives (gas or renewables) is very poor at present.

And just about all of that comes from rules and regulations. Some of it is reasonable safety, but, not all.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmc...he-west-hint-its-not-regulation/#7480eb7d5d1a

"In the East—in Korea, in China and the UAE, which is being built by the Koreans—the cost is $3,000-$4,000 per kilowatt, whereas in the West the cost is north of $8,000 per kilowatt. The question is why."

But, here is a deeper dive.

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html

This process came to be known as "ratcheting." Like a ratchet wrench which is moved back and forth but always tightens and never loosens a bolt, the regulatory requirements were constantly tightened, requiring additional equipment and construction labor and materials. According to one study,4 between the early and late 1970s, regulatory requirements increased the quantity of steel needed in a power plant of equivalent electrical output by 41%, the amount of concrete by 27%, the lineal footage of piping by 50%, and the length of electrical cable by 36%. The NRC did not withdraw requirements made in the early days on the basis of minimal experience when later experience demonstrated that they were unnecessarily stringent. Regulations were only tightened, never loosened. The ratcheting policy was consistently followed.

In its regulatory ratcheting activities, the NRC paid some attention to cost effectiveness, attempting to balance safety benefits against cost increases. However, NRC personnel privately concede that their cost estimates were very crude, and more often than not unrealistically low. Estimating costs of tasks never before undertaken is, at best, a difficult and inexact art.

In addition to increasing the quantity of materials and labor going into a plant, regulatory ratcheting increased costs by extending the time required for construction. According to the United Engineers estimates, the time from project initiation to ground breaking5 was 16 months in 1967, 32 months in 1972, and 54 months in 1980. These are the periods needed to do initial engineering and design; to develop a safety analysis and an environmental impact analysis supported by field data; to have these analyses reviewed by the NRC staff and its Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards and to work out conflicts with these groups; to subject the analyzed to criticism in public hearings and to respond to that criticism (sometimes with design changes); and finally, to receive a construction permit. The time from ground breaking to operation testing was increased from 42 months in 1967, to 54 months in 1972, to 70 months in 1980.

The increase in total construction time, indicated in Fig. 2, from 7 years in 1971 to 12 years in 1980 roughly doubled the final cost of plants. In addition, the EEDB, corrected for inflation, approximately doubled during that time period. Thus, regulatory ratcheting, quite aside from the effects of inflation, quadrupled the cost of a nuclear power plant. What has all this bought in the way of safety? One point of view often expressed privately by those involved in design and construction is that it has bought nothing.

 

[K1052]

And just about all of that comes from rules and regulations. Some of it is reasonable safety, but, not all.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmc...he-west-hint-its-not-regulation/#7480eb7d5d1a

"In the East—in Korea, in China and the UAE, which is being built by the Koreans—the cost is $3,000-$4,000 per kilowatt, whereas in the West the cost is north of $8,000 per kilowatt. The question is why."

But, here is a deeper dive.

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html

The Korean example has merit but they basically have no choice but to get good at nuclear construction given the state of their energy market and available resources. Korea also has a lot of on hand industrial experience that has atrophied or simply disappeared in the US, reconstituting it would prove expensive if not impossible. Even at $3000 per kilowatt installed that's (at least) three times more expensive than new combined cycle gas power, and double new wind, and still above rapidly falling PV costs. As I said, utilities just look at the math and make obvious decisions.

 

[realibrad]

The Korean example has merit but they basically have no choice but to get good at nuclear construction given the state of their energy market and available resources. Korea also has a lot of on hand industrial experience that has atrophied or simply disappeared in the US, reconstituting it would prove expensive if not impossible. Even at $3000 per kilowatt installed that's (at least) three times more expensive than new combined cycle gas power, and double new wind, and still above rapidly falling PV costs. As I said, utilities just look at the math and make obvious decisions.

Gas is passing off its greenhouse effects and not incorporating the true cost. Wind is doing the same when it comes to birds which is turning out to be a huge problem for NA. PV might be the future if we can make it better. Currently PV gets large subsidies.

 

[K1052]

Gas is passing off its greenhouse effects and not incorporating the true cost.

Accurate. Though it is much less carbon intense than the coal it's pushing off the grid. Not great but better.

Wind is doing the same when it comes to birds which is turning out to be a huge problem for NA.

Inaccurate. In terms of kills we'd be better off turning building lights down or neutering more cats.

PV might be the future if we can make it better. Currently PV gets large subsidies

More like a moderate subsidy. Though nuclear got/gets its own.

 

[realibrad]

Inaccurate. In terms of kills we'd be better off turning building lights down or neutering more cats.

Just because there are larger does not make what I said wrong. Yes, cats kill many times more and that too is a problem, but, wind turbines kill birds. Scaling up wind to displace something like nuclear plants would drive that number up greatly.

More like a moderate subsidy. Though nuclear got/gets its own.

Not moderate in many places, although, dropping for sure.

The point is that nuclear is being hampered in the market vs other types. Solar and wind also have issues such as weather that nuclear does not have to deal with. We could put in storage like the Tesla solution so during weather events you could have some backup, but, we are a long way off from that right now.

 

[K1052]

Just because there are larger does not make what I said wrong. Yes, cats kill many times more and that too is a problem, but, wind turbines kill birds. Scaling up wind to displace something like nuclear plants would drive that number up greatly.

I never proposed replacing nuclear with wind. Kills from other sources are enormously larger, yes wind kills some birds though less these days per mw installed as turbines have changed (gotten larger).

The point is that nuclear is being hampered in the market vs other types.

New nuclear construction in the US is subsidized by federal loan guarantees.

Solar and wind also have issues such as weather that nuclear does not have to deal with. could put in storage like the Tesla solution so during weather events you could have some backup, but, we are a long way off from that right now.

Storage, overall, is an issue even with nuclear power. A lot of US pumped storage capacity got built out to absorb surplus night output from the nuclear sector to meet peak needs. Either way with more nukes or more renewables we're going to need a lot more storage.

 

[realibrad]

I never proposed replacing nuclear with wind. Kills from other sources are enormously larger, yes wind kills some birds though less these days per mw installed as turbines have changed (gotten larger).

The impact from nuclear is likely less.

New nuclear construction in the US is subsidized by federal loan guarantees.

That is one part. The overall impact of what I am talking about is far larger than the loan subsidizes.

Storage, overall, is an issue even with nuclear power. A lot of US pumped storage capacity got built out to absorb surplus night output from the nuclear sector to meet peak needs. Either way with more nukes or more renewables we're going to need a lot more storage.

You will need more storage for renewables currently.

 

[K1052]

You will need more storage for renewables currently.

My point is that we would need storage for both. Since it's cheaper, by a lot, to build PV/Wind + storage that is what's happening.

 

[hal2kilo]

The Left isn't monolithic so I try to avoid referring to it as such. I'm not sure how you can peg the political identity on the producers of reactors, but FWIW those nuclear engineers that General Electric and others hire aren't coming from Liberty University. France's Areva (a country considered left wing I think) leads the world in reactor roll out by a substantial margin.

Having said that, American Left leaning baby boomers do think it's scary and they hate it, I agree. It's a generational thing. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl left an indelible mark in how they view nuclear power, and it paired nicely with their fright over the arms race during the Cold War.

Younger generations who appreciate the math involved have different ideas, and correctly see smaller, safer, more numerous reactors as the cheapest and cleanest way to power America. There really isn't any way to argue the disparity in mortality rates IMO. If we want cheap and safe, the choices are nuclear and wind. I say we do both.

How quickly we forget Fukushima, that disaster hasn't even finished playing out. Appreciate this.

 

[realibrad]

How quickly we forget Fukushima, that disaster hasn't even finished playing out. Appreciate this.

What about it?

 

[kage69]

Uh Japan had a triple simultaneous meltdowns less than a decade ago. That some people even of a younger generation could be apprehensive of nuclear power isn't impossible.

That's certainly true, but it still doesn't really budge the needle when it comes to mortality rates. Japan's propensity for earthquakes and tsunamis represent levels of risk that don't necessarily apply to other countries. I'd argue the it was the tsunami itself that created the most anxiety in that case. I'm not saying the risks are overblown, or that it's all about the mortality rate (quality of life matters too), just that the anxiety and worry is misplaced. I feel people of any and all generations should worry about what kills 9 million a year, rather than what has killed <1000 (rounding up) since the advent of nuclear power.


Fukushima could have been a lot worse


"In the case of Fukushima, although 40-50 people experienced physical injury or radiation burns at the nuclear facility, the number of direct deaths from the incident are quoted to be zero. However, mortality from radiation exposure was not the only threat to human health: it's estimated that around 1,600 people died as a result of evacuation procedures and stress-induced factors. This figure ranges between 1,000-1,600 deaths from evacuation (the evacuation of populations affected by the earthquake and tsunami at the time can make sole attribution to the nuclear disaster challenging). Stress-induced deaths affected mostly older people; more than 90 percent of mortality occurred in individuals over the age of 66.
How many are projected to suffer in the long-term from low-level radiation exposure? In its Health Risk Assessment of the nuclear disaster, the World Health Organization (WHO) note exposure levels too low to affect human health for the national population, with exception to a few communities in closest proximity.7 In these localities, it is those who were infants at the time of exposure who are at greatest risk of cancer—at the two closest sites, the incidence of cancer in this demographic is projected to be between 4-7 percent higher than baseline cancer rates for both males and females (with the exception of thyroid cancer in females, which is 70 percent higher). The WHO project the number of deaths from low-level exposure to be close to zero, and up to 400 in upper estimates."

 

[kage69]

How quickly we forget Fukushima, that disaster hasn't even finished playing out. Appreciate this.

Not at all, but I think you might appreciate the date of my edit to that post if you compare it to the date of yours.

 

[K1052]

That's certainly true, but it still doesn't really budge the needle when it comes to mortality rates. Japan's propensity for earthquakes and tsunamis represent levels of risk that don't necessarily apply to other countries. I'd argue the it was the tsunami itself that created the most anxiety in that case. I'm not saying the risks are overblown, or that it's all about the mortality rate (quality of life matters too), just that the anxiety and worry is misplaced. I feel people of any and all generations should worry about what kills 9 million a year, rather than what has killed <1000 (rounding up) since the advent of nuclear power.

I was referring to the possible perceptual issues with new nuclear and how concerns, justified or not, may not be limited to the boomer generation who experienced stuff like TMI/Chernobyl.

 

[kage69]

I was referring to the possible perceptual issues with new nuclear and how concerns, justified or not, may not be limited to the boomer generation who experienced stuff like TMI/Chernobyl.

Fair enough.

 

[DrMrLordX]

One thing. Are you guys trying to suggest that "we" have cracked fusion????

Lockheed says they have. They announced it publicly in 2014 . . . including to shareholders. The people that get to roast them for failure to deliver.

As I said, the prototype stage isn't working out as well as hoped. It's too big. They had to make it bigger to get it to work. Funny thing about the last part of that previous sentence, though . . .

I’ll bite. What did we see in 2006? Not sure about the applicability of the links you gave or the late to the game comment, to reduction of atmospheric levels of CO2 because they have little relation to sequestration. I did especially like the ‘many different approaches need exploration’ point made in the Bill Gates related link.

In '06, and in the few years before and after that point, there was a mass proliferation of science media stories related to synthetic carbon alleles. Stuff like multi-walled, CNTs, diamond nanorods, etc. The field has become more clogged with graphene and this new "carbyn" stuff I've never even heard of before, until yesterday. It's always the same saw: the material is extraordinary, but it's expensive to produce. And why is it expensive? Because the processes are unrefined and it's energy-intensive.

It is only a matter of time.

As for applicability, I think Scott Adams basically nailed it. Once you can make long-chain hydrocarbons, you have the perfect precursor material for carbon allele manufacture. Currently a lot of CNT synthesis involves graphite. But if you have to knock loose any of those carbon-carbon bonds - which you generally do - then you are burning a lot of energy in the effort. But long-chain hydrocarbons typically feature weak bonds that release more energy than is required to crack them. If you crack those bonds without using oxygen to do it, then you might actually get stray carbon AND energy from the reaction (albeit not as much as you get from combustion), giving you more of what you need for allele manufacturing.

So if you have a cheap-as-in-almost-free fusion power source to aid in the manufacture of hydrocarbons from . . . air, along with your allele manufacturing, now you can make building materials out of "thin air". Hooray! And those materials you produce using your synthetic carbon alleles will never decay or degrade under normal circumstances, making it the perfect carbon sink.

As an aside, if/when fusion comes online "for the masses", I expect societies that avail themselves of it will probably reduce CO2 output considerably. But it won't be uniform, and I suspect certain institutions will avail themselves of the tech before anyone else. Lockheed's prototype is intended for military applications. The "civilian" model isn't supposed to be ready until 2024. Don't hold your breath.