User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 5614
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

Re: TVA commissions first new nuclear reactor in US in 20 years

Sat Oct 22, 2016 12:33 pm

DaveinOlyWA wrote:This is why Solar does not pencil out. It is because we as individuals can take the matter into our own hands. Big Energy simply cannot allow that to happen.
I am not a fan of utility solar. PV solar belongs on our rooftops. But not all solar is created equal. Ivanpah is about the worst of the worst when it comes to "renewable" energy.
DaveinOlyWA wrote:There is little doubt Nuclear would win on several fronts, but it also loses on a few but lets not get blinded by the number of bullet points because Nuclear loses in a very big way.
Fair enough. My complaint is that CA is eliminating excellent solutions for electricity production such as hydroelectric and nuclear and replacing it with very costly and damaging "solutions" which cannot (yet) replace baseload production.

TVA, OTOH, embraces both hydroelectric and nuclear. The main drawback of that approach is that it makes it a bit hard to justify PV when electricity is so cheap.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K miles: Apr 14, 2013, 20K miles (55.7Ah): Aug 7, 2014, 30K miles (52.0Ah): Dec 30, 2015, 40K miles (49.8Ah): Feb 8, 2017, 50K miles (47.2Ah): Dec 7, 2017.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

DaveinOlyWA
Posts: 12310
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:43 pm
Delivery Date: 10 Nov 2016
Leaf Number: 314199
Location: Olympia, WA
Contact: Website

Re: TVA commissions first new nuclear reactor in US in 20 years

Sat Oct 22, 2016 1:33 pm

Well there is simply no "one size fits all" solution and maybe centralized Solar in that area is less feasible but we are seeing too many power plants generating huge profits and huge mountains of waste and have yet to see any hint of a long term solution.

The very fact that Solar is so scalable makes it an invaluable source. Yes its part time and yes its a bit of a land hog but it can also be utilized without using an extra inch of real estate. A great FB post about Target becoming the #1 solar power source among retailers. They have a LOT of roof space! But because solar takes power out of the total control of the utilities, it will not have major financial backing. But we may not need that. The solar movement is doing very well in some areas while just now getting recognition in other areas.

We also have to look at the fact that Nuclear plant costs are not going to go down without some sort of major break thru but Solar is because its not a mature science yet. We are still building it, still figuring it out. As I see it, the only thing that is stopping solar is not land use, its power storage. Solve that and I don't see Nuclear having much of a chance in most of the country.
2011 SL; 44,598 miles. 2013 S; 44,840 miles.2016 S30 (build 10/2016)"low water marks" 27,000 miles.363GID Ahr 79.13Hx95.17%kwh28.1QCs238,L2's 251
My Blog; http://daveinolywa.blogspot.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
drees
Moderator
Posts: 6208
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:51 pm
Location: San Diego

Re: TVA commissions first new nuclear reactor in US in 20 years

Sat Oct 22, 2016 5:30 pm

RegGuheert wrote:My complaint is that CA is eliminating excellent solutions for electricity production such as hydroelectric and nuclear and replacing it with very costly and damaging "solutions" which cannot (yet) replace baseload production.

Hydro has large environmental costs which is why many large dams are being dismantled on the west coast.

Cherry picking a solar plant which would not be built today as an example of why solar is bad, is just that picking cherries.

If you want to look at nuclear gone bad, there's plenty of examples of those - just north of here there's a plant called SONGS - mothballed because the utility and contractor made a critical mistake and so costly to fix that it was determined to be more cost effective to replace it with other sources of generation. So much for being too cheap to meter.

As far as your earlier claims that nuclear power kills infinitely fewer birds that Ivanpah, that's almost certainly exaggerating - all human activity has an effect on wildlife. Never mind that buildings, cars and cats are the biggest man-made causes of avian deaths, but I don't see many people clamoring to dismantle those.

"Baseload" is a myth since no power plant is 100% renewable. And the problem with large plants is that the effect of one going down is much more difficult to mitigate than distributed generation. Baseload is an old argument used to promote inflexible generators when what we need are flexible generators so we can integrate as much renewable energy as possible.
'11 LEAF SL Powered By 3.24 kW Enphase Solar PV

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 5614
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

Re: TVA commissions first new nuclear reactor in US in 20 years

Sat Oct 22, 2016 7:02 pm

drees wrote:Hydro has large environmental costs which is why many large dams are being dismantled on the west coast.
Dismantling the electricity solution with the lowest environmental impact per kWh and replacing it with production with about the highest impact is ludicrous.
drees wrote:Cherry picking a solar plant which would not be built today as an example of why solar is bad, is just that picking cherries.
Making straw man arguments about something I never said or implied is just that: a straw-man fallacy.
drees wrote:If you want to look at nuclear gone bad, there's plenty of examples of those - just north of here there's a plant called SONGS - mothballed because the utility and contractor made a critical mistake and so costly to fix that it was determined to be more cost effective to replace it with other sources of generation. So much for being too cheap to meter.
I never said nuclear was too cheap to meter. Another straw-man argument?

Regardless, nuclear power remains the safest form of electricity generation.
drees wrote:As far as your earlier claims that nuclear power kills infinitely fewer birds that Ivanpah, that's almost certainly exaggerating - all human activity has an effect on wildlife. Never mind that buildings, cars and cats are the biggest man-made causes of avian deaths, but I don't see many people clamoring to dismantle those.
Ignore the massive environmental damage of Ivanpah if you must, but I will not.
drees wrote:"Baseload" is a myth since no power plant is 100% renewable. And the problem with large plants is that the effect of one going down is much more difficult to mitigate than distributed generation. Baseload is an old argument used to promote inflexible generators when what we need are flexible generators so we can integrate as much renewable energy as possible.
Actually, the myth is that the grid will be stable without baseload generators to provide spinning inertia. You don't have to take my word for it. Rather, you can look at what happens when grids loose their link to baseload. The massive power outage which took down the entire grid in South Australia is quite instructive. Three things jump out at me:

1) Once the grid connections to other states were severed or weakened, South Australia's grid stability was greatly reduced
2) Large groups of wind generators dropping offline simultaneously was "the straw that broke the camel's back."
3) The failure which occurred in SA was predicted to happen by the grid operator, AEMO, in October 2014, about two years prior to the event:
AEMO wrote:While these developments benefit SA and the NEM, having a high proportion of wind and PV generation can present a risk for SA if the Heywood Interconnector link to Victoria is disconnected at a time when all local conventional synchronous generators are offline. This occurs as wind and PV generators, by themselves, are not able to provide the required controls to ensure system security.
What you call a myth is the reality in South Australia.

Further reading:
SA Blackout: Three towers, six windfarms and 12 seconds to disaster
Another Statewide Blackout: South Australia's Wind Power Disaster Continues

Again, eliminating affordable, environmentally-friendly, safe and effective baseload power generation with "solutions" which do not meet the requirements of the electrical grid is a foolhardy adventure.

Will we get there eventually? Sure. But let's take logical steps rather than foolish ones.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K miles: Apr 14, 2013, 20K miles (55.7Ah): Aug 7, 2014, 30K miles (52.0Ah): Dec 30, 2015, 40K miles (49.8Ah): Feb 8, 2017, 50K miles (47.2Ah): Dec 7, 2017.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

User avatar
drees
Moderator
Posts: 6208
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:51 pm
Location: San Diego

Re: TVA commissions first new nuclear reactor in US in 20 years

Sat Oct 22, 2016 11:26 pm

RegGuheert wrote:Ignore the massive environmental damage of Ivanpah if you must, but I will not.

So you will ignore the impact of large hydro, but won't ignore the impact of Ivanpah? Got it.

RegGuheert wrote:The massive power outage which took down the entire grid in South Australia is quite instructive.

Every objective analysis of the South Australian outage comes two one of either two conclusions:
1. With or without wind, the grid was going down that day.
2. Adjusting the thresholds at which wind turbines would shut down (grid anomaly ride out parameters) would have either mitigated or prevented the problem.
'11 LEAF SL Powered By 3.24 kW Enphase Solar PV

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 5614
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

Re: TVA commissions first new nuclear reactor in US in 20 years

Sun Oct 23, 2016 2:38 am

drees wrote:
RegGuheert wrote:Ignore the massive environmental damage of Ivanpah if you must, but I will not.

So you will ignore the impact of large hydro, but won't ignore the impact of Ivanpah? Got it.
I'm not suggesting you should ignore anything. What I am suggesting is that you recognize that the damage from large hydro is much smaller on a per-kWh basis. Statements that large hydroelectric dams do massive damage do not recognize that they are extremely benign on the basis of the amount of electricity they produce.

On top of that, the hydroelectric facilities are already in place. It makes no sense to tear them down and build more-damaging facilities to replace them.
drees wrote:
RegGuheert wrote:The massive power outage which took down the entire grid in South Australia is quite instructive.

Every objective analysis of the South Australian outage comes two one of either two conclusions:
1. With or without wind, the grid was going down that day.
2. Adjusting the thresholds at which wind turbines would shut down (grid anomaly ride out parameters) would have either mitigated or prevented the problem.
But they didn't ride through. You stated:
drees wrote:And the problem with large plants is that the effect of one going down is much more difficult to mitigate than distributed generation.
In fact, the large generators had no problem weathering the storm that hit SA last month. But the wind turbines are operating out in the storm with nowhere to hide. It was exactly the distributed generation that could not be mitigated in this failure, not the large plants. Those plants were the last part of the grid standing and were not the cause of the outage.

Yes, the ride-through parameters can be changed, but, by their very nature, wind generators can never be as hardened to weather as the nuclear reactor just commissioned in TN. In addition, they do not provide the rotating inertia that SA needs to stabilize their grid. SA is now faced with a serious question: Can they operate their grid with no synchronous generation in place and/or no link to other states (which have synchronous generators)? Is there even a cold-start capability in SA with no synchronous generators? The likely answers are no and no.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K miles: Apr 14, 2013, 20K miles (55.7Ah): Aug 7, 2014, 30K miles (52.0Ah): Dec 30, 2015, 40K miles (49.8Ah): Feb 8, 2017, 50K miles (47.2Ah): Dec 7, 2017.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

smkettner
Posts: 7018
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 10:13 pm
Delivery Date: 26 Feb 2014
Location: Orange County, CA

Re: TVA commissions first new nuclear reactor in US in 20 years

Sun Oct 23, 2016 9:41 am

I think this could be the last nuke built. At least I think we are near the end of this cycle.
I believe more will get dismantled than built in the coming decades.
In the mean time it should serve well over the next 20 to 50 years.

Has the waste solution been worked out yet?
1 bar lost at 21,451 miles, 16 months.
2 bar lost at 35,339 miles, 25 months.
LEAF traded at 45,400 miles for a RAV4-EV

DanCar
Posts: 949
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 12:00 am
Delivery Date: 10 Mar 2013
Location: SF Bay area, 94043

Re: TVA commissions first new nuclear reactor in US in 20 years

Sun Oct 23, 2016 10:03 am

smkettner wrote:I think this could be the last nuke built. ...
Many being built in China. http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publicatio ... 36_web.pdf 10 new reactors powered up last year. I agree this technology seems to be surpassed by roof top solar and others. Nuc technology will have to vastly improved before it will make a comeback.
Has the waste solution been worked out yet?
Elon can make use of them on Mars to melt the frozen CO2. :P

DaveinOlyWA
Posts: 12310
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:43 pm
Delivery Date: 10 Nov 2016
Leaf Number: 314199
Location: Olympia, WA
Contact: Website

Re: TVA commissions first new nuclear reactor in US in 20 years

Sun Oct 23, 2016 10:57 am

smkettner wrote:I think this could be the last nuke built. At least I think we are near the end of this cycle.
I believe more will get dismantled than built in the coming decades.
In the mean time it should serve well over the next 20 to 50 years.

Has the waste solution been worked out yet?


read somewhere some years ago about a reactor that uses spent rods as fuel. Not as efficient but solves the problem of our "soon to be bigger" that Mt. Everest aka spent fuel rods storage...
2011 SL; 44,598 miles. 2013 S; 44,840 miles.2016 S30 (build 10/2016)"low water marks" 27,000 miles.363GID Ahr 79.13Hx95.17%kwh28.1QCs238,L2's 251
My Blog; http://daveinolywa.blogspot.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 5614
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

Re: TVA commissions first new nuclear reactor in US in 20 years

Sun Oct 23, 2016 11:53 am

smkettner wrote:I think this could be the last nuke built.
What about the two that DNAinaGoodWay wrote about?
DNAinaGoodWay wrote:It takes so long to build these. Planning for this began in the 70's & 80's and it's design is similar to that era. But there are more in the pipeline:
Two new nuclear units being built by the Southern Company, in Georgia, and two more under construction in South Carolina, will employ a new, more-streamlined technology called an “advanced pressurized water reactor,” which is thought to be an even greater safety improvement over older technologies.


From: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ene ... fdc300ada6
smkettner wrote:Has the waste solution been worked out yet?
Not in any visible way. There have been some grandiose claims made recently:



Here are a couple of papers on the topic:

A review article in The Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science

An article on the topic in Current Science
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K miles: Apr 14, 2013, 20K miles (55.7Ah): Aug 7, 2014, 30K miles (52.0Ah): Dec 30, 2015, 40K miles (49.8Ah): Feb 8, 2017, 50K miles (47.2Ah): Dec 7, 2017.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

Return to “Environmental Issues”