Gen IV Nuclear Plants - AIChE Presentation

Subtitle: Gen IV Designs Have Too Many Serious Flaws

This article follows the previous article (see link) with my recollections and comments on the nuclear power presentation at the AIChE dinner meeting on 4-11-2019 in Houston, Texas.

The presenter, Dr. Pavel V. Tsvetkov, seemed quite knowledgeable and sincere in his views.  To his credit, he mentioned a few negative points for nuclear energy in general, and specific points to some of the designs he presented.  He did, however, say some things that were either unrealistic, or entirely too optimistic in my view.   And, that is ok; I believe we need optimists in the world, as long as their views are filtered and judged through a sober process that adequately considers safety, costs, and better alternatives. 

The questions in my previous article remained unanswered for the most part, as they were not asked.  A few others in attendance did ask a similar question on the safety, and spent fuel, and plant size or capacity.  But, nothing on subsidies, capacity factor in operation, construction costs, operating costs, or decommissioning costs. 

A few of the presenter's points made me pause and hope that no one ever, ever builds one of these things.  More on that below. 

In no particular order, then, here are some points I recall that seemed true about nuclear energy's drawbacks. 

- The entire fission nuclear process is carbon-free only in the operating reactor portion.  All the other aspects are performed now, and likely in the future, with a large degree of fossil fuel use.   Those other aspects include, but are probably not limited to, uranium mining, uranium ore processing and concentration, uranium fuel preparation and delivery, constructing a plant, decommissioning a plant, and spent fuel cooling, handling and monitoring. 

- Nuclear reactors have some ways to produce electricity other than boiling water or heating a gas, but the engineering challenges are simply too great to spend time on these.  

-  Nuclear plants can be built to follow the grid load, but the costs are greater.  This is a crucial point, because already high costs are increased even more as the plant reduces output to follow the load.  

Next, here are some points the presenter made that are absolutely false, in my experience. 

- Existing nuclear plants will run for 100 years.   No, they won't.  These plants shut down almost always before the 40th year of operation.  The ones that keep running are crying desperately for more government subsidies because they are losing money. 

-  SMR, or small modular reactors of various designs, will be very low-cost.  He stated they will be built in factories just like cars are built.   That is certainly not going to happen, as the need for electrical plants simply is not on the same scale as automobile sales.   Automobile sales are in the millions of units per year.  Power plant sales are in the few hundreds of plants per year.    No economy of production volume will change those economics.   For example, one can calculate that for a 40 year life, replacing only the natural gas and coal-fired plants in the US requires approximately 60 new plants each year.  If these were small enough, say 50 MWe output as envisioned for small modular reactors, we can increase that to 300 plants per year.   That is nowhere close to the millions per year required to achieve economy of scale through increased production volume.  Instead, the economics work against one, as smaller units cost much more per quantity of output. 

- Molten salt reactors, such as molten fluoride with dissolved thorium or uranium, are intrinsically safe.  No, they are not.  He showed a conceptual flow diagram that made me cringe.  The molten, 900 degree C radioactive bath is pumped from the reactor vessel through a heat exchanger, where a heat transfer fluid is heated.   That heat transfer fluid is then pumped through a second heat exchanger, where water is boiled to make steam for a turbine.  The heat transfer fluid is then pumped back around in a loop to the first heat exchanger.   The cringe-worthy aspect is the fact that heat exchangers eventually leak.  There will be heat exchanger fluid flow either into the radioactive molten salt, or the other way round with the molten salt injected into the heat exchanger fluid.  One picks one, or the other by choice of operating pressures in the heat exchanger.  Either way, that is some serious bad news when (not IF) the leaks occur.    As proof, one need only look at the heat exchanger leaks that occur periodically in the existing nuclear reactor fleet; and note soberly that such a leak was what caused the San Onofre Generating Station (SONGS) to shut down permanently.   That was "only" a radioactive steam leak.  

Another serious drawback is the pumping of that radioactive, molten fluoride salt.   Pumps leak, and having that material leak onto the concrete floor is more than a bit troublesome.  There will also be valves in the lines, and valves also leak.  Who wants radioactive, molten fluoride salt dripping from a valve, making a puddle to step in or over?

- Gen IV nuclear plants can be used to produce fresh water via desalination.   No, they won't.  The economics will not allow such a thing.  Even if desalination is ever necessary, solar thermal plants have a huge economic advantage over the incredibly expensive and dangerous nuclear plants. 

- Molten metal Gen IV nuclear plants will operate at high temperatures, therefore high thermal cycle efficiencies, and will be safe.   No, the same issues exist as described above with pumping molten salts: it is extremely difficult and dangerous to pump hot, molten sodium, and the same for hot, molten lead.   Sodium reacts explosively with contact with humid air, and lead fumes cause all manner of brain damage in humans. 

- Gen IV reactors will be ideal for supplying process heat in refineries and petrochemical plants, also chemical plants.   No, they won't.  The inherent dangers in such process plants simply will not be improved by the presence of a nuclear plant, whether for electricity or process heat production.  Instead, having a nuclear plant on the premises will make emergency responses much, much more hazardous.   Unfortunately, refineries and other process plants sometimes have operating upsets, fires, and explosions that require emergency response personnel to enter and handle the problems.   Who wants to speculate on the incredible situation where the plant is on fire, but the nuclear plant is so close to the fire that a radiation release is not only possible, but very likely.   No, thanks.  


There may be more issues to write about and discuss, but here ends the article for today. 

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Houston, Texas

copyright (c) 2019 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved

Topics and general links:

Nuclear Power Plants.......here

Climate Change................here  and here

Fresh Water......................here

Engineering......................here  and here

Free Speech.................... here

Renewable Energy...........here  

A Subsidy Synopsis

Subtitle: Wind Energy Succeeds while Nuclear Recedes

Much is made over the subsidies that renewable energy have, almost always by their detractors.   One would think, from listening only to the detractors, that no other energy source (electricity generation in this instance) has ever had, or ever will have, subsidies.  

(UPDATE:  8/18/2017 -  Added material on the mis-direction in the subsidy study below, commissioned by the Nuclear Energy Institute.  As usual with anything from the nuclear industry, the deception is strong.   In this case, the results shown compare apples and oranges, in an attempt to hide the huge subsidies that nuclear power has received. -- end update)

The facts are quite the opposite.   But, before getting into the actual numbers for each generating technology, a digression into subsidy policies.   Also, what to include when the word subsidy is used. 

Governments are the usual source of subsidies, sometimes in the form of direct grants of money from tax revenues, or in favorable tax treatment (e.g. tax credits) to companies that engage in an activity, or regulations that favor that activity, or government services to that activity, or market activity i.e. the government purchases the product to ensure a market exists, also government guaranteed loans to build a project to produce the product.   In the case of commercial nuclear power, an additional (perhaps unique) subsidy was granted: no liability to the nuclear plant owner in a catastrophic radiation release, beyond a small, nominal amount that is covered by insurance.  The government assumes all liability above a stated amount.  SLB has at least two articles on the Price-Anderson Act for liability subsidies for commercial nuclear power plants. 

Many, many activities are within the world of subsidies.   Indeed, the US Federal Tax Code lists 21 items as tax credits for individuals, plus 31 additional items as tax deductions for individuals.  The list for businesses is much, much longer.   In addition to Federal tax credits and tax deductions, many states also have additional tax credits and tax deductions.  

Having looked at what subsidies are, next is discussed why they exist.   Government has as a rightful concern the well-being of the people.   There may be government policies that are to be adopted, but the government prefers that private enterprise conduct that activity.   One example of this is commercial nuclear power.   Before power plants were built, there were plenty of atomic bomb blasts, later nuclear blasts and hydrogen bomb tests.   In short, those tests created great fear not only in the US population, but in many millions of people around the world.   US President Eisenhower recognized this, and made his famous Atoms For Peace speech at the UN.   In that speech, he advocated peaceful uses for the atom, including producing electricity in atomic power plants.   The thinking was that maybe, people would be less frightened if they know of the benefits of atomic power.   He also listed medical uses and agricultural uses.   As a result, Eisenhower insisted the US utility industry build nuclear power plants.  The executives were reluctant, knowing already that the cost to build such things was far greater than building a same-size coal-powered plant.   They also refused to build any at all due to the huge liability and insurance costs from a radiation release.   Eisenhower listened.  And had Congress pass the Price-Anderson Act, to take on almost all the radiation release liability.    So, that is one subsidy and its reason. 

Others, such as the tax deduction for home mortgages but not for home rental payments, are to encourage an activity that promotes domestic stability.   The thinking is that a home owner takes greater pride in his home and is ultimately more stable than those who rent.  There are arguments about that. 

Yet another is the direct use of government funds to build large dams across major rivers, store up the water in lakes and generate hydroelectric power as the water is released.  Almost all of the large hydroelectric dams in the US were built with government money.  Indeed, three of the biggest systems are the TVA, BPA, and of course the world-famous Hoover Dam.   TVA is Tennessee Valley Authority, BPA is the Bonneville Power Administration.   The power produced from all was sold at very low prices for many decades.  

Next, the question is, what is not a subsidy?  Are there benefits that accrue to a technology that are not actually subsidies?  That question generates considerable debate.   One that is frequently thrown out is that fossil fuels do not pay for their external costs to society, which is claimed as a hidden subsidy.   Another is that mining of oil, coal, and natural gas enjoys a mineral depletion allowance in the tax treatment of a company's revenues.   Still others are the pollution to air, water, and soil from fossil fuels that create harm or monetary losses but are not paid for by the fossil fuel companies.   Lately, the molecule Carbon Dioxide has been vilified as a convict (no longer a suspect!) in that category of pollution.   The buzz-word today is "social cost of carbon."  

Examples include the mine tailings for coal, toxic metals in ash piles from coal, drilling mud from oil and natural gas, sulfur and nitrogen oxides from burning coal and oil and gas, particulate matter (PM) from fossil fuel combustion, and dirty water disposal from hydraulic fracturing operations.   In addition, there are toxic salts from geothermal wells that produce power.   Even more toxic are the radioactive solids left behind in the mining of uranium ores and its enrichment.    Then, there are the impacts on wildlife.  There were acid rain stories and scares a few decades ago that affected fish and the creatures that ate them.   There are the millions of birds that are killed each year by conventional power plants.  

Yet, with all that as known pollution, the anti-wind groups focus solely on the bird and bat deaths by old-style derrick-design wind turbine support towers. 

The Past 60 Years Of Energy Subsidies

A few years ago, in 2011, the federal government did a study on subsidies for energy.  The result was "60 Years of Energy Incentives; Analysis of Federal Expenditures for Energy 
Development," October 2011, By Management Information Services, Inc., Washington, D.C.
Prepared for The Nuclear Energy Institute, Washington, D.C.   see link to report.   For those who prefer to cut and paste, the URL is 

http://www.misi-net.com/publications/NEI-1011.pdf

The report results are summarized in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 - Comparison of Energy Subsidies since 1950 by Type and Energy Source
(2) Renewables are mostly Wind and Solar 

UPDATE:  8/18/2017 - added the various elements for each category of subsidies in the Report.  Added a number of Federal subsidy programs. 

A. Tax Policy
Tax policy includes special exemptions, allowances, deductions, credits, etc., related to the federal tax code. Tax policy has been, by far, the most widely used form of incentive mechanism, accounting for $394 billion (47 percent) of all federal expenditures since 1950. The oil and gas industries,for example, receive percentage depletion and intangible drilling provisions as an incentive for exploration and development. Federal tax credits and deductions also have been utilized to encourage the use of renewable energy.

B. Regulation
This category encompasses federal mandates and government‐funded oversight of, or controls on,businesses employing a specified energy type. Federal regulations are an incentive in the sense that they can contribute to public confidence in, and acceptance of, facilities and devices employing a new or potentially hazardous technology. Federal regulations or mandates also can directly influence the price paid for a particular type of energy. Thus, it is not surprising that federal mandates and regulations have been an important part of energy policy, accounting for $158 billion(19 percent) of energy incentives.
For this analysis, two types of federal expenditures associated with regulation were identified: 1) gains realized by energy businesses when they are exempt from federal requirements that raise costs or limit prices, and 2) costs of federal regulation that are borne by the general budget and charged to the regulated industries.

An example of the first type of regulatory incentive comes from the oil industry, which has benefited
from:

 exemption from price controls (during their existence) of oil produced from “stripper wells”
 the two‐tier price control system, which was enacted as an incentive for the production of “new”oil, and
 the higher‐than‐average rate of return allowed on oil pipelines.\
An example of the second type of regulatory incentive comes from the nuclear energy industry.Through the NRC (and its predecessor, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), the federal government regulates the design and operation of nuclear plants to ensure protection of public health and safety. In this case, an independent, credible federal regulatory regime promotes public and investor confidence in commercial nuclear enterprises around the country. The cost of regulating nuclear safety through the NRC/AEC through 2010 was more than $16 billion. This amount includes the cost of administering both agencies (AEC to 1975 and the NRC from 1975 forward) as well as credit for regulatory user fees paid by electric utilities. Since 1991, these user fees have offset most of the NRC’s operating budget.

C. Research and Development
This type of incentive includes federal funding for research, development and demonstration programs.Of the $837 billion in total federal spending on energy since 1950, research and development funding comprised about 18 percent ($153 billion).

D. Market Activity
This incentive includes direct federal government involvement in the marketplace. Through 2010,federal market activity totaled $80 billion (10 percent of all energy incentives). Most of this market activity was to the benefit of hydroelectric power and, to a much smaller extent, the oil industry.Market intervention incentives for hydroelectric energy include the prorated costs of federal construction and operation of dams and transmission facilities. These costs are prorated because beginning in the 1930s, federal dams and water resource projects have been multi‐purpose. The results of these investments include flood control, navigation, recreation, regional development and other benefits in addition to hydroelectric power. Therefore, it is necessary to estimate the portion of the net investment in construction and operation of dams allocated to power developmentand the relevant transmission facilities.
Market activity incentives for the oil industry include the relevant planning, leasing, resource management and related activities of the U.S. Department of the Interior’s (DOI) Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

E. Government Services
This category refers to all services traditionally and historically provided by the federal government without direct charge and totaled $57 billion through 2010, representing 7 percent of total incentives. Relevant examples include the oil industry and the coal industry.
U.S. government policy is to provide ports and inland waterways as free public highways. In ports that handle relatively large ships, the needs of oil tankers represent the primary reason for deepening channels. They are usually the deepest draft vessels that use the port and a larger than‐proportional amount of total dredging costs are allocable to them. The authors estimated the expenditures for federal navigation programs and allocated these costs as a petroleum subsidy according to the ratio of petroleum and petroleum‐based products carried to all water borne trade. Similarly, to estimate the incentives for coal production from federal expenditures for ports and waterways, the costs for all improvements were multiplied by coal's share of the tons of total waterborne commerce.

F. Disbursements
This category involves direct financial subsidies such as grants. Since 1950, direct federal grants and subsidies have played a very small role in energy policy, accounting for –$6 billion, a negligible fraction of total incentives.

An example of federal disbursements is subsidies for the construction and operating costs of oil tankers. For nuclear energy, federal disbursements are negative, meaning the industry pays more than it receives in disbursements as a result of the contributions the industry makes to the Nuclear Waste Fund. As of 2010, the Nuclear Waste Fund had accumulated an $18 billion surplus. The entry shown in Exhibits 1 and 2 for disbursements to nuclear energy is shown as a negative value to reflect the industry’s over payment compared to what has been disbursed on its behalf.   End Update.

Some discussion follows.

It can be seen from Figure 1 that subsidies exist for all in healthy amounts, except for geothermal.  The number for nuclear incentives is mostly for research programs such as the fast breeder program.  Notably absent for nuclear are the subsidies as described earlier, radiation release liability, loan guarantees, and others.

(update added 8/18/2017) 

The study is very interesting for a few reasons.   It is very typical of nuclear-sponsored studies, as the industry strives mightily to deflect attention from its numerous drawbacks.   In this report, nuclear power is compared to oil, gas, coal, hydroelectric, renewable energy (solar and wind), and geothermal.  see Figure 2.   However, it must be noted that oil is almost 99 percent used for purposes other than producing electricity.  Some of those uses are transportation fuels, heating oil, petrochemical feedstock, lubricants, and asphalt.  Natural gas also has many non-electricity uses, including things such as petrochemical feedstocks, fertilizer feedstock, heating uses, and transportation fuel.   A small part of coal is used in making steel and cement, also non-electricity uses.   But, this study includes all of the oil, all of the natural gas,  and all of the coal for subsidy comparison.  No wonder nuclear is not the largest number in their study.    In fairness, however, the study does include non-electricity uses for nuclear power, such as for Navy, Army, spacecraft propulsion, and merchant ship power.  Those are a very small amount. 

The second deception is the failure to include nuclear research funds into fusion.  For whatever reason they saw as appropriate, nuclear fusion research is excluded.   That, then, is a marvelous way to make the totals for nuclear subsidies appear smaller.   -- end update 8/18/2017.

Figure 2.  Comparison of Federal Subsidies for Energy 

One of the main arguments for incentives, or subsidies, is the research or assistance actually produces results that are useful.   It is clear that most of the nuclear R&D has not produced useful results.   In direct contrast, the funds spent on wind turbine energy have been extremely effective.  Wind turbine generators have one-third the capital cost today compared to only 7 years ago, plus much better productivity or capacity factor.   Also, wind energy now comprises almost 8 percent of of total US electricity production.   That percentage will increase as more wind turbine generators are installed.  

Wind energy incentives, or subsidies, have been a rousing success.   Nuclear research dollars, not so much.   In fact, fusion is still 100 years away, breeder reactors are also, and molten salt reactors are a disaster waiting to be built. 

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California
copyright (c) 2017 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved

Topics and general links:

Nuclear Power Plants.......here
Climate Change................here  and here
Fresh Water......................here
Engineering......................here  and here
Free Speech.................... here

Renewable Energy...........here  

  

Two More Nuclear Plants to Shutdown in US

Subtitle:  Another One Bites The Dust

It does not come as a surprise.  Two more aging, money-losing nuclear plants, this time in Illinois, are threatened to be closed if government does not provide even more subsidies.  Per the Wall Street Journal see link, Exelon is to close the Clinton and the Quad Cities nuclear power plants if the legislation is not passed.   UPDATE 6/2/2016: - Clinton to close on June 1, 2017.   Quad Cities to close one year later, June 1, 2018 -- RES. 

"According to Exelon, Clinton and Quad Cities have lost more than $800 million over the past six years. . .  Exelon said some nuclear plants are at risk of closing because wholesale energy prices are at a 15-year low. "

These two join the list that includes Pilgrim, and FitzPatrick nuclear plants that were subjects of recent articles on SLB and their imminent closure.   In every case, the reasons given are the same: the nuclear plants are losing money and are unable to compete in the electricity market.  

Clinton

What is more interesting about the Clinton nuclear power plant is that it is only 29 years old, which is relatively young for a retiring nuclear plant.   The plant started operations in 1987.  (It will be barely 30 years old upon shutdown in 2017) 

Quad Cities

The Quad Cities nuclear power plant is 43 years old, having started operations in 1973.  This age is much more typical of the nuclear plants that shut down.   (It will be 45 years old upon shutdown in 2018, making it the grand old man of US nuclear power.   If it makes it that far, that is. ) 

Commentary

In the big picture, one can expect that an average of 5 to 6 nuclear power plants will shut down each year over the next two decades.  This is based on the age of the nuclear power plants, their inability to run profitably, and the high cost to modify the plants to increase revenues.   

The US nuclear reactors are approximately 35 years old on average, with many reactors past 40 years.   With the revolution in electricity generation brought about by low-price for natural gas, which is now less than $2 per million Btu, and tremendous increases in wind-turbine electricity, wholesale power prices are very low.  Wind-turbine energy now (as of early 2016) matches and sometimes exceeds the electricity produced by hydroelectric dams.  In this market, many nuclear power plants run at a loss, as Exelon stated above: $800 million loss over the past six years. 

The nuclear plants, perhaps, could be modified with sufficient ingenuity and money to operate more profitably.  The major problem to such a plan is the short life after the modifications are made.  One could, for example, invest $400 to $800 million in a nuclear plant to uprate it, or produce more power.   Some plants have done this.  The twin-reactor plant in California at San Onofre tried to do this a few years ago, with disastrous results.  The new equipment, four high pressure steam generators, developed leaks and sent radioactive steam into the skies above Southern California.   Both reactors were then permanently shut down.  But, even if the modifications work as planned, the plant owners have only a few years to recover the investment before the plant is shut down due to other parts requiring replacement.   Nuclear plants were designed for 40 years of operation.  Even though the NRC typically grants every request to extend the operating license to 60 years, the plants must continue to meet all safety requirements.  

Cries for Subsidy

The cries for more subsidies are falling on deaf ears, which is as it should be.  Nuclear power plants already enjoy more subsidies than any other industry one can name.  As written before on SLB, nuclear plants in the US have at least six forms of government subsidy, indemnity from harm from radiation releases, government guaranteed construction loans, protection from most lawsuits during construction, safety regulations relaxed to allow plants to continue to operate, laws passed to obtain construction funds from existing consumers, and direct payment of 2.3 cents per kWh for all power sold for the first 10 years from a new nuclear power plant.   Now, the plant owners are threatening plant closure if more subsidies are not provided.  (6/2/2016, the legislature failed to pass any new subsidies for the nuclear plants, so they are to close as stated above. ) 

Conclusion

Shutting down nuclear power plants will become routine, common-place.  The growth industry will be nuclear plant decommissioning.   It is expected that 50 to 60 nuclear reactors will be shut down and decommissioning started over the next decade.   Between 30 to 40 more plants will be shut down in the subsequent decade.  

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California

copyrignt © 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved

Subsidies for Wind vs Nuclear Power Plants

Subtitle: Wind-Turbine Projects Thriving Despite Only One Subsidy - Nuclear Dead With Six

Much is written about subsidies for renewable energy systems in the US, in particular for wind-turbine systems and solar power systems.  One blog, WUWT, recently ran a cartoon that is supposed to highlight the subsidies that are bestowed upon wind-turbines.  The

Wind Turbines in US

cartoon shows an angry, broken wind-turbine with smoke rising from the nacelle, red stains on the blades, and a dead bird near the tower's base.  There are also what appear to be two bags of cash near the tower's base, with the cash blowing in the wind.    The little broken turbine is given a name, "Subsidy Sam."  

The reality of wind-turbines is shown in the photo at right, clean, bird-free, and silently producing power. 

What is indisputable is that wind-turbines presently have a very small subsidy from government to encourage their construction and operation.  The subsidy exists as a choice between a one-time rebate of 30 percent of the installed cost, and a production tax credit of 1.5 cents per kWh sold that is adjusted for inflation.  Most plant owners elect the production tax credit.  

However, what is conveniently overlooked by the anti-wind crowd is that nuclear power plants, their favorite form of power generation, has far more, and far more costly forms of government subsidies.  The chart below illustrates the many forms of subsidy that the two forms of power generation presently have. 

For US Plants, as of 2016

Even with all the subsidies for nuclear plants, only four reactors are presently under construction in the US, two each at Vogtle and at Sumner.   Meanwhile, thousands of wind-turbines have been installed in recent years, with more thousands on the way.  In 2015 alone, 8,000 MW of wind-turbine power was installed in the US.   The nuclear plants under construction will be lucky indeed if they are started up within the next decade.  Within that decade, it is probable that another 80,000 to 100,000 MW of wind-turbines will be installed. 

For more details on the multiple subsidies enjoyed by nuclear power plants in the US, see this link to an SLB article, "US Nuclear Plants are Heavily Subsidized."

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California

copyrignt © 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved

Desperate Nuclear Plant Rescue - More Subsidies

Subtitle: Old Nuclear Plant is Losing Money - More Subsidies Proposed

This is becoming a repeating theme:  a nuclear plant operator loses money, announces shutdown; state lawmakers step in to change laws to subsidize the nuclear plant so it can keep operating.    This time around, it is the FitzPatrick nuclear plant, on the shore of Lake Ontario in New York state.   see link   "CNY state legislators sponsor bills trying to save FitzPatrick nuclear plant"   

FitzPatrick Nuclear Plant with Lake Ontario in background (NRC)

These new proposed subsidies are in addition to the long list of existing subsidies that US nuclear power plants enjoy.  see link to "US Nuclear Plants are Heavily Subsidized,"  and see link to "Price-Anderson Act Gives Too Much Protection to Nuclear Plants."

The FitzPatrick plant is due to shut down in 2017.  Lawmakers likely will not garner support for such a subsidy.   The simple fact is that a nuclear plant requires substantial investment in its latter years, after age 30 approximately.   But, with the low prices for electricity due to increasing natural gas power production, especially at night when the nuclear plant will not or cannot reduce its output, it is difficult for plant owners to justify spending the money on nuclear plant upgrades.   FitzPatrick just passed its 40th anniversary (July 1975 startup).  Any money spent on upgrades would not have a long life to return the investment.   It is better to shut down the plant and cut one's losses, instead of spending money and then shutting it down.  

Even though many nuclear proponents insist that nuclear plants run for 60 years, that is not the case.  When FitzPatrick shuts down in 2017, it will have operated only 42 years.   see link  to Truth About Nuclear Power - Part 10,  "Nuclear plants require costly upgrades after 20 to 30 years"   

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
copyright (c) 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved

UK Hinkley Point Nuclear Plant Heavily Subsidized

Subsidies for nuclear power plants are not just in the US.   This week, several sources report that UK's proposed Hinkley Point C plant, a 3,200 MWe nuclear plant, received a blessing from the EU Commission to obtain public funding - a form of subsidy.  See link for a BBC report.   (for more on US subsidies for its nuclear power plants, of which there are at least six different subsidies, see this link and this link). 

The Hinkley Point C plant will have two reactors, each 1,600 MWe, of the EPR reactor design that is currently such a fiasco in Finland at Olkiluoto. (see link)   To their credit, the BBC article admits the Hinkley Point C will require 10 years to first operation.  However, the plant life is also stated as 60 years, which is wildly optimistic. 

The subsidy for Hinkley Point C apparently takes the form of a high sales price for power at the transaction bar - the plant boundary.  The plant owner is guaranteed the equivalent of US 15 cents per kWh, approximately double the present rate for wholesale power in the UK.  

What is interesting is the quoted price to build the plant, at £24.5 billion (the equivalent of US$ 39.2 billion).   This equates to MORE than $10,000 per kW, at $12,250.   Again, this is precisely what SLB has maintained all along - a new nuclear power plant costs far more than the $4,000 some advocates maintain.  Instead, it will cost at least $10,000 per kW, and more likely $12,000 per kW.   Here we see at least a small beginning of honesty from the nuclear establishment.  

However, given the long, dismal history of nuclear plant schedule delays and cost overruns, it is to be expected that the Hinkley Point C twin reactor plant will take far longer than 10 years to startup, and will cost far more than US$ 39 billion.  It will likely require 15 years or longer, and $48 billion or even more.  

The poor people of the UK will foot the bill, as they have few choices but to buy the power.  However, with the higher and higher prices that will inevitably occur, it may be possible for some of the grid customers to unplug themselves from the grid.  There may be better, cheaper ways to produce their own electricity.  For an analysis of such ways, see this link.   In the year 2023 or perhaps later, 2030 as a more realistic startup date, the options for unplugging from the grid and self-generation will likely be more numerous and more appealing than what we have today.  

It will be a long, long time before Hinkley Point C begins producing power and its true impact will be felt.  One can only hope the resourceful people of the UK will rise to the occasion and replace as much power as possible to self-generate and save money.  

In another moment of rare candor, UK officials tried to justify the new nuclear plant by stating that there are few options available for providing reliable power.  They state that coal is nearly exhausted and would be unreliable if imported, natural gas also is in short supply and in danger of being cut off by selling nations (meaning Russia), and wind is too unreliable.  Solar in the UK area is not at all economically attractive, owing to the high latitude and cloudy weather.  (The UK, after all, is of the same approximate latitude as Hudson Bay in Canada)   

What, then, is left but nuclear?    One answer, of course, is offshore wind coupled to ocean-based storage systems that supply power on demand, quite reliably. (see link) By 2030, one expects that the offshore wind with storage to be well-proven and very attractive.    All the offshore wind projects must do to compete is beat US$12,250 per kW.  The energy is free, and many of the other very high costs of running a nuclear plant simply do not exist for wind-energy. 

Update - 10/13/2014:  UK wind resources offshore are quite good.  see link   -- end update. 



Roger E. Sowell, Esq. 
Marina del Rey, California

copyright (c) 2014 by Roger Sowell -- all rights reserved

Forecasting the Future - Hubris or Honesty

Subtitle:  Coal Exhaustion Looms - Renewable Energy to the Rescue

"It's hard to make predictions, especially about the future," - attributed to Yogi Berra.

In any event, a few articles on SLB have alluded to the future, if not outright predicted the future.  One article made the case for Peak Oil as non-existent, and argued that the US should build several coal-to-liquids plants to help reduce the world price of crude oil see link. Another described future energy supplies, with renewables and regenerables as the primary supplies see link.  Still another described the near-impossibility of having nuclear power plants as the long-term supply of energy  see link.  Another described the outrageous power prices that would result from an all-nuclear-powered grid see link.  

For another quasi-quote:  "A foolish man maintains his opinion no matter what the facts are.  A wise man considers new facts, and modifies his opinions accordingly."  - paraphrased.  

A new fact presented itself to me a few days ago, and after giving it some thought, it is time to modify an opinion.  The new fact is that coal, that mainstay of electric power generation world-wide, is in shorter supply than I had remembered.  In fact, several reputable sources now state that world reserves of coal will be exhausted in roughly 60 to 70 years - and that is if no increase in current consumption occurs.  Yet, growing economies in several countries are increasing their coal consumption year-over-year.  China and India are on that list.   It is entirely conceivable that coal will run out in less than 50 to 60 years.  

What then, are the alternatives?   From Yogi's quote above, it may be futile to make predictions.   It was only 135 years ago when no one had electricity, because the first generators connected to a grid were started in approximately 1880.   Only 70 years ago, the first atomic energy was created - and that was a bomb, not a power plant.   How, then, can one predict the future of energy supplies 100 or 200 years into the future? 

One thing we can do is examine the existing energy mix, and see what will be available in 100 years.  We note that power is generated today by hydroelectricity from water flowing from dams, by burning natural gas in power plants, by burning coal in power plants, a small amount by burning oil in power plants, by nuclear fission in power plants, and a small amount by renewables such as geothermal, wind, and solar.   There are also some very small experimental plants for ocean waves and tides, and river currents.  

However the greatest source of modern electricity is burning coal, at 41 percent of the total in 2011 (source, IEA).  Next is natural gas at 21 percent.   The people who drill for gas are quite good at finding more as the need arises, drilling in new areas or deeper in old areas.  In addition, we know that great stores of methane exist in the cold, deep ocean as methane hydrates.    The same is not true for coal, however.  

Coal is only economic if it can be mined and brought to the surface at fairly low cost.  Indeed, coal must exist in a seam at least 2 feet thick, and at less than 4000 feet depth, or it is stranded, left in place.  CalTech's Professor Rutledge gives an excellent overview of world coal reserves in his 2011 paper.  ("Estimating long-term world coal production with logit and probit transforms,"  International Journal of Coal Geology, 85 (2011) 23-33 ).  He paints a grim picture.  Roughly, there are 500 billion tonnes of mine-able coal left in the world, and the existing consumption rate is 7.8 billion tonnes per year.  This provides approximately 60 to 70 years of coal remaining.   However, a slight positive note is that Rutledge did not include coal deposits near the Arctic, in Alaska North Slope, and Siberia's Lena and Tungus fields.   Whether those fields in the harsh, cold far north can be produced economically is an open question. 

As stated earlier, nuclear fission is not a candidate due to resource limitations, outrageous cost, and serious safety concerns.  The world is in great need, then, dire need actually, of a replacement energy source for coal and nuclear.  Together, that is nearly 55 percent of today's energy production.  

Knowing this, it makes sense to turn to the renewables: wind, solar, and ocean current.  It may also be possible to make the ocean-temperature-difference technology (OTEC) work.  If the technologies still need a subsidy to advance so they can stand alone and provide electricity at reasonable rates, then prudence dictates the subsidies be made.   

Advances in grid-scale energy storage have been made, with underwater storage in the shallow oceans an excellent candidate.  Similar systems can be deployed around the deeper Great Lakes in the US.  

Is this hubris?  Will engineers and planners of the year 2100 read this or similar articles, and get a good laugh?  It could happen.   Until some major technology improvement or discovery occurs, though, this is about the best we can do.  We can alter our grids so that power can flow from onshore turbines in windy areas to storage facilities.  We can install large, economic wind turbines offshore and store the power underwater in hollow spheres for later use.  We can maintain the improvements in solar photo-voltaics, primarily efficiency and cost reduction.  A recent announcement showed that 40 percent efficiency has been achieved in PV (2014).   We can install and test slow-speed ocean current turbines, and tap into the incredible amounts of energy in the ocean currents.   

The problem is made much, much more acute when one considers the effect of population growth, and the increase in energy-per-capita.  A growth rate in electricity consumption of only 2 percent per year will triple electricity demand in only 55 years.  (the STEM majors will run that calculation and verify it as 2.97, close enough to 3.0)   Even more sobering is that number will again triple in another 55 years.  That puts the world needing 9 times the present energy in only 110 years.   That puts Professor Rutledge's 60 to 70 years for coal-exhaustion as an optimistic figure.  We may well run out of coal long before that.  

When various governments decide to continue subsidies for wind, or solar, or fund research into alternative energies, and some decry these as a waste of money, I hope someone points this article to them.   What would the nay-sayers do?  There will be a grim day of reckoning when the coal runs out.   It would be far, far better to have proven, economic means to provide grid-scale electricity at least a decade before the coal-runs-out-day. 

It may be possible, someday, to gasify coal in-situ and collect the gasified product at the surface and do all this economically.  There is research into this.  The practical challenges are, however, enormous.  One must essentially start a fire in the coal-bed, deep underground, with sufficient oxygen to maintain the burning.  The economics of oxygen injection make the entire thing questionable.   Also, a patent from 1980 describes injecting methanol and steam into a coal bed to produce methane.  

Roger E. Sowell, Esq. 
Marina del Rey, California

The Truth About Nuclear Power - Part 13

Subtitle: US Nuclear Plants are Heavily Subsidized

In an attempt to revive a dead industry, nuclear power plants have received, and continue to receive strong subsidies. This, the thirteenth article in the series, discusses nuclear subsidies.  Updated 5/28/2014 -- see below for state of Illinois' attempt to bail out money-losing nuclear plants. 

source: Wiki Commons

Previously, the articles on The Truth About Nuclear Power showed that (one) modern nuclear power plants are uneconomic to operate compared to natural gas and wind energy, (two) they produce preposterous pricing if they are the sole power source for a grid, (three) they cost far too much to construct, (four) use far more water for cooling, 4 times as much, than better alternatives, (five) nuclear fuel makes them difficult to shut down and requires very costly safeguards, (six) they are built to huge scale of 1,000 to 1,600 MWe or greater to attempt to reduce costs via economy of scale, (seven) an all-nuclear grid will lose customers to self-generation, (eight) smaller and modular nuclear plants have no benefits, (nine) large-scale plants have very long construction schedules even without lawsuits that delay construction, (ten) nuclear plants do not reach 50 or 60 years life because they require costly upgrades after 20 to 30 years that do not always perform as designed, (eleven) France has 85 percent of its electricity produced via nuclear power but it is subsidized, is still almost twice as expensive as prices in the US, and is only viable due to exporting power at night rather than throttling back the plants during low demand, and (twelve) nuclear plants cannot provide cheap power on small islands.  Links to previous articles are found at the conclusion of this article. 

Carbon Tax   

Nuclear advocates argue, firstly, for a carbon tax so their plants will be economically attractive. The idea is that, since nuclear plants are powered by radiation-spewing uranium fuel that produces no carbon dioxide, these type of plants should be credited for not producing CO2.  Their argument is based on the fundamentally flawed premise that increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes global warming.  Other forms of power generation that burn fossil fuels, coal, natural gas, do emit CO2.  Congress did not pass a carbon tax, but the present administration accomplished the same goal via the US EPA.  The US EPA effectively got the same result by regulating CO2 emissions from power plants so that coal-fired plants must shut down.  Nuclear advocates see this as a huge victory.  In a sense, the EPA regulations are a form of federal subsidy for the nuclear industry.  

UPDATE 5/28/14:  see link  From the Chicago Tribune, Nuclear plants cannot compete economically, so the Illinois Speaker of the House introduces a resolution urging federal policies to subsidize nuclear plants based on their zero-emissions of CO2.    "Three nuclear plants owned by Chicago-based Exelon Corp. failed to secure contracts to provide power to the electrical grid at an annual auction held last week.

Exelon’s Byron and Quad Cities plants in Illinois were priced out of the auction by competing power providers, the company said Tuesday, placing the future of those assets in question. Its Oyster Creek plant in New Jersey, which is slated to close in 2019, also didn’t clear the auction."     also, 

". . . [Illinois] House Speaker Michael Madigan [D - IL] wants to help keep those plants open. They are among the top employers in the towns and counties in which they operate. A resolution sponsored by Madigan was introduced to the House last Friday urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the electric grid operators, to adopt policies that are "friendly" to nuclear power. Translation: enact a new rule to curb carbon emissions, which would be a boon to Exelon because its nuclear plants do not release greenhouse gases."  -- end update

Double Standard on Subsidies

Secondly, nuclear advocates also have a double standard in decrying any subsidies for their competition - primarily wind but also other renewable forms of power generation.  Then, the industry happily accepts subsidies of their own, not just the EPA boost from regulating coal-fired plants out of operation.  The nuclear industry also receives subsidies in the form of: 

1) huge loan guarantees from government, approximately $8.3 billion for the Vogtle plant alone.  (Update 5/4/2014: For more on new nuclear projects with loan guarantees, see link -- end update)
2) government legal relief from radiation liability, under the Price-Anderson Act, (see update just below)
3) regulation that no lawsuits during construction will be allowed (with a minor exception),
4) regulation to raise electricity prices during construction to avoid interest costs on construction loans; [UPDATE - 5/31/2014: South Carolina has already increased rates to pay for nuclear construction, now seeks another increase.  "The latest request, if approved, will mean customers will be paying about $20 more per month for their power than they were at the beginning of 2009. "  see link   end update]

 and 
5) operating regulations that are routinely relaxed to allow plants to not spend money to comply. (see Article 15 in the series, link here)  

Each of the five subsidies just listed will may be the subject of a more detailed article.  

Update: 5/11/2014 - Price-Anderson Act, summary.  The Act limits the liability of nuclear plant owners to $10.2 billion, with the US government taking the excess liability above that stated limit.  This is, probably, the greatest subsidy of all.  No nuclear plant would be constructed absent this shielding from lawsuits and damage claims from a major nuclear meltdown and release of radioactive materials.   (see link for more details and analysis on Price-Anderson Act on SLB - Part 25 in TANP series)

The language of the Act states: "The Price-Anderson Act requires owners of commercial reactors to assume all liability for damages to the public resulting from an
‘extraordinary nuclear occurrence’ and to waive most legal defenses
they would otherwise have. However, in exchange, their liability
will be limited to capped amounts established in the Act.
First, each licensed reactor must carry the maximum amount of
insurance commercially available to pay any damages from a severe
nuclear accident. That amount is currently $300 million.
Any damages exceeding that amount are to be assessed equally
against all covered commercial reactors, up to $95.8 million per reactor
(most recently adjusted for inflation by NRC in August 2004).
Those assessments would be paid at an annual rate of no more

than $10 million per reactor. According to the NRC, all of the nation’s 103 commercial reactors are currently covered by the Price-
Anderson retrospective premium requirement.
Funding for public compensation following a major nuclear incident
would therefore include the $300 million in insurance coverage
carried by the reactor that suffered the incident, plus the
$95.8 million in retrospective premiums from each of the 103 currently
covered reactors, totaling $10.2 billion. On top of those payments,
a 5 percent surcharge may also be imposed, raising the total
per-reactor retrospective premium to $100.6 million and the total
potential compensation for each incident to about $10.7 billion.
Under Price-Anderson, the nuclear industry’s liability for an incident
is capped at that amount, which varies depending on the
number of covered reactors, amount of available insurance, and an
inflation adjustment that is made every 5 years.
The Act provides that in the event that actual damages from an
accident are in excess of this amount, Congress will ‘‘thoroughly review’’
the incident and take such action as is necessary to provide
‘‘full and prompt compensation to the public.’’ " -- source: Price-Anderson Act Amendments of 2005. [end update]

Cannot Compete Even With Subsidies

Even with the subsidies in the US, nuclear power has stagnated and is barely limping along on life support.  More plants are shutting down than are being built.

Conclusion

Nuclear power plants in the US are, and have been, heavily subsidized via loan guarantees, liability relief, relief from some lawsuits, a form of a carbon tax that shuts down their coal-based competition, and others.   The only conclusion that can be drawn is US nuclear power plants are heavily subsidized. 

Previous articles in the Truth About Nuclear Power series are found at the following links.  Additional articles will be linked as they are published. 

Part One – Nuclear Power Plants Cannot Compete

Part Two – Preposterous Power Pricing if Nuclear Power Proponents Prevail

Part Three – Nuclear Power Plants Cost Far Too Much to Construct

Part Four – Nuclear Power Plants Use Far More Fresh Water

Part Five – Cannot Simply Turn Off a Nuclear Power Plant

Part Six –  Nuclear Plants are Huge to Reduce Costs

Part Seven -- All Nuclear Grid Will Sell Less Power

Part Eight – No Benefits from Smaller Modular Nuclear Plants

Part Nine -- Nuclear Plants Require Long Construction Schedules

Part Ten -- Nuclear Plants Require Costly Upgrades After 20 to 30 Years

Part Eleven - Following France in Nuclear Is Not The Way To Go

Part Twelve - Nuclear Plants Cannot Provide Cheap Power on Small Islands

Part Thirteen - this article  

Part Fourteen - A Few More Reasons Nuclear Cannot Compete

Part Fifteen - Nuclear Safety Compromised by Bending the Rules

Part Sixteen - Near Misses on Meltdowns Occur Every 3 Weeks

Part Seventeen - Storing Spent Fuel is Hazardous for Short or Long Term

Part Eighteen - Reprocessing Spent Fuel Is Not Safe

Part Nineteen - Nuclear Radiation Injures People and Other Living Things

Part Twenty - Chernobyl Meltdown and Explosion

Part Twenty One - Three Mile Island Unit 2 Meltdown 1979

Part Twenty Two - Fukushima The Disaster That Could Not Happen

Part Twenty Three - San Onofre Shutdown Saga

Part Twenty Four - St. Lucie Ominous Tube Wear

Part Twenty Five - Price-Anderson Act Protects Nuclear Plants Too Much

Part Twenty Six - Evacuation Plans Required at Nuclear Plants

Part Twenty Seven - Power From Nuclear Fusion

Part Twenty Eight - Thorium MSR No Better Than Uranium Process

Part Twenty Nine - High Temperature Gas Reactor Still A Dream

Part Thirty - Conclusion

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California