Support NeoGAF

[Muffin1611]

COLUMBIA, S.C. (Reuters) - South Carolina utilities said on Monday they are abandoning two unfinished reactors
that were once hailed as the start of a U.S. nuclear power renaissance before they were dogged by billions of dollars in cost overruns.

A unit of SCANA Corp and state-owned Santee Cooper said on Monday they would abandon the twin-reactor project known as V.C. Summer.
It is less than 40 percent complete, and more than $9 billion had been spent on construction.

The project was expected to begin producing power last year but has been plagued by construction problems,
disputes with regulators and poor quality work.

The utilities blamed the bankruptcy of project's contractor, Toshiba Corp's Westinghouse Electric Co,
which said in March it could not afford to finish the fixed-price contract for V.C. Summer or a similar project in Georgia known as Vogtle.

A presentation to the Santee Cooper board showed that in the wake of Westinghouse's bankruptcy the project would likely not be completed before 2023
and would go 75 percent over the initial budget, to as much as $24 billion.

"The collapse of the Summer project should be a cautionary tale,"
said Edwin Lyman, a senior scientist with the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington.
He said new designs will still require billions of dollars to ensure they meet strict safety standards.

"Unless the nuclear industry acknowledges that there are no shortcuts to development of new nuclear power technology,
it will be doomed to repeat this failure," he said.

More at the link.

 

[StarCreator]

"launched" is the right word if they never produced power in the first place.

This is sad though. Nuclear power is the cleanest form of reliable power generation we have. There need to be more nuclear plants in operation, not less.

 

[PdotMichael]

24 billion for two 1117 MW reactors.

Ridiculous.

 

[Akuun]

Depressing.

And "Union of Concerned Scientists" is probably the weakest organization name I've ever heard.

 

[Lonely1]

24 billion for two 1117 MW reactors.

Ridiculous.

Just imagine how many walls you guys could have build with that!

 

[turmoil]

Just imagine how many walls you guys could have build with that!

Like one?

 

[Frankfurter]

Just the latest disaster in the so called nuclear renaissance. Hinkley Point, Flamanville, that power plant in Finland... all 2-3 times over budget, years late, billions of taxpayer subsidies, but still can't compete with solar or wind.

 

[randomengine]

"launched" is the right word if they never produced power in the first place.

This is sad though. Nuclear power is the cleanest form of reliable power generation we have. There need to be more nuclear plants in operation, not less.

Nuclear waste is the dirtiest form of waste there is. Nuclear plants cannot be turned off for any reason once they are live or else they will cause a meltdown - see Fukushima.

Nuclear power was a mistake and needs to be retired forever.

 

[CTLance]

Haha, nine billion in sunk cost and wasted labour.

That's, like, thirty bucks per US citizen. Not bad.

 

[PdotMichael]

Just imagine how many walls you guys could have build with that!

Well, put some solar panals on it and it would have a better price/energy production ratio than nuclear energy.

 

[Daedardus]

Just the latest disaster in the so called nuclear renaissance. Hinkley Point, Flamanville, that power plant in Finland... all 2-3 times over budget, years late, billions of taxpayer subsidies, but still can't compete with solar or wind.

They are totally different types of plants though. Some plants are needed to cover the base load. The grid investments needed to cover a total flexible energy production are even higher than the construction of this plants had it not gone over budget.

Nuclear waste is the dirtiest form of waste there is. Nuclear plants cannot be turned off for any reason once they are live or else they will cause a meltdown - see Fukushima.

Nuclear power was a mistake and needs to be retired forever.

They can be turned off quite easily, it just takes a while to reboot them (weeks actually to get to full stable power), so they are not powered down without a good reason. That's not what they are intended for either. There are lots of safety mechanisms in place to emergency shutdown a reactor. In the case of Fukushima, the earthquake and tsunami caused many of these systems too fail, but let's not firget that that earthquake killed 15,000 other people too. Problem with Fukushima too was that it was a Boiling Water Reactor instead of Pressurised Water Reactor.

 

[theechrisfox]

Fossil fuel execs can breathe a nice hot sigh of relief.

 

[PdotMichael]

They are totally different types of plants though. Some plants are needed to cover the base load. The grid investments needed to cover a total flexible energy production are even higher than the construction of this plants had it not gone over budget.

Baseload isn't a problem with renewable energy, although the coal and nuclear lobbies can't stop using baseload as boogeyman against renewable energy.

 

[Vanillalite]

Look as I said before.

Vogtle is a collosal disaster. Like I'd argue it's the biggest commercial disaster of the 21st century in the US.

I don't think people fully grasp just how bad this has been. Like at every turn it's gone to new heights of cluster fuck.

It's also gonna set precedent for what the US does in this area going forward at least in the short term.

 

[Wilsongt]

5,000 jobs lost.

#MAGA

Also, they kept raising our rates on our power bills here to help pay for that project. I highly doubt that they'll go back to lowering them, though.

Thieves.

 

[PumpkinSpice]

I'm no fan of nuclear but...

24 billion for two 1117 MW reactors.

Ridiculous.

A lot of the cost so far has been in trying to prove the new type of reactors meet safety standards, which is hard because they're new. Future ones shouldn't have that problem.

Nuclear waste is the dirtiest form of waste there is. Nuclear plants cannot be turned off for any reason once they are live or else they will cause a meltdown - see Fukushima.

Nuclear power was a mistake and needs to be retired forever.

I agree for old ones, but the latest nuclear plants are designed in such a way that they don't need active maintenance and can be shut off with no ill effects. These specific reactors are AP1000 which make use of passive safety technology to not need the same sort of active water pumps that the Fukushima plants needed (in this case there's a 72 hour safety window).

 

[Frankfurter]

They are totally different types of plants though. Some plants are needed to cover the base load. The grid investments needed to cover a total flexible energy production are even higher than the construction of this plants had it not gone over budget.

Let's see how necessary "base load" really is, once Germany is off of nuclear.
Keep in mind that wind and solar are getting cheaper as we speak, while nuclear and co. are getting more and more expensive. The gulf in costs will be huge for a NPP going into operation in say 2025 (i.e. in reality 2030+). There is no wind wind or solar could possibly be more expensive than that. In terms of solar I'm talking about Germany, i.e. a region that is roughly as well suited for solar as southern Canada.

 

[AliasGreed]

China builds this plants for a fraction of the cost and time.

Vogtle and VG Summers have been unmitigated disasters. Nuclear is dead in the USA. It's growing in the Middle East and Asia.

 

[PdotMichael]

Let's see how necessary "base load" really is, once Germany is off of nuclear.
Keep in mind that wind and solar are getting cheaper as we speak, while nuclear and co. are getting more and more expensive. The gulf in costs will be huge for a NPP going into operation in say 2025 (i.e. in reality 2030+). There is no wind wind or solar could possibly be more expensive than that. In terms of solar I'm talking about Germany, i.e. a region that is roughly as well suited for solar as southern Canada.

The problem with nuclear energy will always be that building and planning one takes easily over a decade, while you can build wind and solar parks in a short time, which means the gap between building and launching means that you are forced to run dirty energy sources for years.
Meanwhile building wind and solar parks can be done in a short time without all the program failure risks.

 

[randomengine]

I'm no fan of nuclear but...



A lot of the cost so far has been in trying to prove the new type of reactors meet safety standards, which is hard because they're new. Future ones shouldn't have that problem.



I agree for old ones, but the latest nuclear plants are designed in such a way that they don't need active maintenance and can be shut off with no ill effects. These specific reactors are AP1000 which make use of passive safety technology to not need the same sort of active water pumps that the Fukushima plants needed (in this case there's a 72 hour safety window).

Thanks for the information.

In the AP1000, Westinghouse's Passive Core Cooling System uses a tank of water situated above the reactor. When the passive cooling system is activated, the water flows by gravity to the top of the reactor where it evaporates to remove heat. The system uses multiple explosively-operated and DC operated valves which must operate within the first 30 minutes. This is designed to happen even if the reactor operators take no action.[14] The electrical system required for initiating the passive systems doesn't rely on external or diesel power and the valves don't rely on hydraulic or compressed air systems.[2][15] The design is intended to passively remove heat for 72 hours, after which its gravity drain water tank must be topped up for as long as cooling is required.[11]

This assumes in the case of a catastrophe that there is a 72-hour window if everything works perfectly before water has to be repumped into the system. This assumes the site isn't too radioactive for humans to do so.

This is a lot better than Fukushima, but in my opinion it still isn't good enough. We cannot assume the site will be safe enough to top off the water after 72 hours. I am not sure if Fukushima were an AP1000 that the meltdown still would not have occurred.

 

[Daedardus]

Baseload isn't a problem with renewable energy, although the coal and nuclear lobbies can't stop using baseload as boogeyman against renewable energy.

Let's see how necessary "base load" really is, once Germany is off of nuclear.
Keep in mind that wind and solar are getting cheaper as we speak, while nuclear and co. are getting more and more expensive. The gulf in costs will be huge for a NPP going into operation in say 2025 (i.e. in reality 2030+). There is no wind wind or solar could possibly be more expensive than that. In terms of solar I'm talking about Germany, i.e. a region that is roughly as well suited for solar as southern Canada.

Grid balancing definitely is a problem for many countries that do not have access to geographical advantages for pumped hydro storage for example. Germany can cope because it exports a lot of its energy to neighbouring countries. Energy exchange capacity is severely limited however and needs to invested in a lot to improve. This is not something I've made up either, I'm a power engineer and I have some friends working for the TSO here and for them grid balancing has become increasingly difficult.

There's a lot of will to improve the grid though, the most promising research is all focused on flexible energy storage and stuff. Many people in the industry also acknowledge the danger of global warming and the need to reduce carbon emissions and nuclear waste, but going pure on wind and solar just isn't realistic at this moment. There are lots of funds needed, but I don't think that the people would be happy to pay twice the amount of their distribution tariff.

 

[PumpkinSpice]

This assumes in the case of a catastrophe that there is a 72-hour window if everything works perfectly before water has to be repumped into the system. This assumes the site isn't too radioactive for humans to do so.

This is a lot better than Fukushima, but in my opinion it still isn't good enough. We cannot assume the site will be safe enough to top off the water after 72 hours. I am not sure if Fukushima were an AP1000 that the meltdown still would not have occurred.

Yes, I agree that 72 hours still isn't great. Newer designs have even better safety built in, like no meltdown possible effectively.

NOVA did a very good documentary on new nuclear technology a few months ago. It turned me from a hard no to a maybe. I still wouldn't feel comfortable having this near where I live but there may be parts of the world where it would make sense.

 

[Frankfurter]

Grid balancing definitely is a problem for many countries that do not have access to geographical advantages for pumped hydro storage for example. Germany can cope because it exports a lot of its energy to neighbouring countries. Energy exchange capacity is severely limited however and needs to invested in a lot to improve. This is not something I've made up either, I'm a power engineer and I have some friends working for the TSO here and for them grid balancing has become increasingly difficult.

There's a lot of will to improve the grid though, the most promising research is all focused on flexible energy storage and stuff. Many people in the industry also acknowledge the danger of global warming and the need to reduce carbon emissions and nuclear waste, but going pure on wind and solar just isn't realistic at this moment. There are lots of funds needed, but I don't think that the people would be happy to pay twice the amount of their distribution tariff.

Well that's not the plan anyway. Germany is kind of limited in terms of water, but nevertheless ~3% of its electricity comes from water power. Add Biomass (~6% or so and growing). 50Hertz, the grid operator in the North/Northeast of Germany says 80% renewables is totally fine without any additional storage capacity - and I assume they know what they are talking about (that's also the area that's the most powered by renewables alread, primarily wind, a little solar, ~zero water). It's true that Germany imports/exports a lot of energy, but that's obviously part of the plan. I don't see it as a negative, it's actually a way to stabilize the grids in Europe.

 

[ExVicis]

"launched" is the right word if they never produced power in the first place.

This is sad though. Nuclear power is the cleanest form of reliable power generation we have. There need to be more nuclear plants in operation, not less.

Yeah I'm saddened too. All this push for cleaner energy and the most efficient form of it we're getting rid of. Really awful how much misinformation and bad perception of Nuclear power there is.

 

[DeviantBoi]

5,000 jobs lost.

#MAGA

Also, they kept raising our rates on our power bills here to help pay for that project. I highly doubt that they'll go back to lowering them, though.

Thieves.

Of course.

When oil prices soared, everything went up in price because of that.

Now that they've gone down and stabilized, everything is just as expensive.

 

[DrROBschiz]

Stupid

Should have never greenlit more Light water iterative reactors

They are good but not good enough

We will likely see fusion before we ever get the best of what Fission had to offer

What wasted potential

 

[PdotMichael]

Yeah I'm saddened too. All this push for cleaner energy and the most efficient form of it we're getting rid of. Really awful how much misinformation and bad perception of Nuclear power there is.

Why do people claim that nonsense despite all the decades long experience we have with nuclear energy?

 

[djplaeskool]

I've been watching the slow moving financial disaster that is Plant Vogtle in Georgia for so many years. Just a complete unmitigated catastrophe of a project.
Approaching four years behind schedule.
Over $3 Billion dollars over budget.
I mean, how. Just how.

 

[DrROBschiz]

Why do people claim that nonsense despite all the decades long experience we have with nuclear energy?

Decades long of doing the same thing because the industry doubled down one ONE design that used 1% of the energy in the fuel

Light Water reactors and solid uranium rods

Thats it... for 50 fucking years. With band aid safety iterations

There are a ton of ways to do fission but unfortunately the time to R&D and build better reactors has flatlined

Like I said we are more likely to buy time and burn natural gas and use renewables until Fusion hits i guess

Such a shame. We could have been exploring the potential of fission for a long time but the industry put themselves into a corner with hard investment into uranium infrastructure

 

[jfkgoblue]

"launched" is the right word if they never produced power in the first place.

This is sad though. Nuclear power is the cleanest form of reliable power generation we have. There need to be more nuclear plants in operation, not less.

People fear what they don't understand though. The irrational fear of nuclear power is just as common on the left as it is on the right, and it really is the best of both worlds. It's cheaper to run and it doesn't burn fossil fuels, but fear is keeping it from taking off.

 

[Ghost]

It's almost like those reactors could never ever have been built for the quoted costs and the whole thing was just a scam.

 

[DrROBschiz]

It's almost like those reactors could never ever have been built for the quoted costs and the whole thing was just a scam.

It was silly to bet a Nuclear future on ANY LWR design going forward

But they have no choice since we havent had a new flagship design proposed and prototyped in decades outside of small scall experimental shit

And we weren't going to since a new design requires pushing out the entire old industry

Which is basically what needs to happen. Fuel suppliers for LWR's needs to be phased out for us to move forward and thats a bitter pill

 

[Seth Enosh]

On topic: That's too bad. Maybe we should have had France construct all our reactors for us or something.

Thanks for the information.



This assumes in the case of a catastrophe that there is a 72-hour window if everything works perfectly before water has to be repumped into the system. This assumes the site isn't too radioactive for humans to do so.

This is a lot better than Fukushima, but in my opinion it still isn't good enough. We cannot assume the site will be safe enough to top off the water after 72 hours. I am not sure if Fukushima were an AP1000 that the meltdown still would not have occurred.

Why would the site be radioactive during the 72 hour window?

Fukushima ran on batteries for 24 hours after the earthquake and everything was fine, IIRC. The problem and meltdown only happened after the 24 hours when they weren't able to get high voltage power to all the reactor buildings to turn the pumps back on.

The AP1000 design seems a lot better since you just have to get water into a gravity drain tank (no electricity needed) and 72 hours is a lot of time. If Fukushima had 72 hours of batteries we wouldn't even know its name right now, I'd guess.

 

[DrROBschiz]

Fission is going to die only ever being able to achieve 1% of its potential

fucking sucks

We went with LWR all those years ago to make bombs for war and now our future suffers for it

Nuclear weapons were a mistake

 

[PdotMichael]

Decades long of doing the same thing because the industry doubled down one ONE design that used 1% of the energy in the fuel

Light Water reactors and solid uranium rods

Thats it... for 50 fucking years. With band aid safety iterations

There are a ton of ways to do fission but unfortunately the time to R&D and build better reactors has flatlined

Like I said we are more likely to buy time and burn natural gas and use renewables until Fusion hits i guess

Such a shame. We could have been exploring the potential of fission for a long time but the industry put themselves into a corner with hard investment into uranium infrastructure

Of course no one wants to invest in nuclear energy. The promises of the 50's never materialized and now it can't compete with other traditional energy sources and renewable energy anymore.

Fusion is also another fantasy. Any energy agenda can't operate with fusion energy as potential energy source, we don't know when fusion energy is ready or if the economical operation of such reactors is even possible in the first place.

People fear what they don't understand though. The irrational fear of nuclear power is just as common on the left as it is on the right, and it really is the best of both worlds. It's cheaper to run and it doesn't burn fossil fuels, but fear is keeping it from taking off.

Politicans doing non popular things all the time. We don't see more nuclear reactors because of technical and economical reassons. They are expensive, sluggish and there are cheaper and cleaner options avaiable. Renewable energy is seeing growth rates in such a short time which are impossible with nuclear energy at similiar costs.

 

[Frankfurter]

People fear what they don't understand though. The irrational fear of nuclear power is just as common on the left as it is on the right, and it really is the best of both worlds. It's cheaper to run and it doesn't burn fossil fuels, but fear is keeping it from taking off.

No, it is not.

 

[Buba Big Guns]

Nuclear waste is the dirtiest form of waste there is. Nuclear plants cannot be turned off for any reason once they are live or else they will cause a meltdown - see Fukushima.

Nuclear power was a mistake and needs to be retired forever.

Whats the prevalence of Nuclear Waste leakage? Oh I guess you probably barely did any research before drive by posting random buzzwords.

Data from Nuclear waste facilities here in Canada (no link, but all documents are publicly available on the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission website):

Radiological Airborne Emissions:

Orders of magnitude below allowable release limits

Radiological Waterborne Emissions:

Orders of magnitude below allowable release limits

Non-Radiological Emissions:

Surprise surprise, orders of magnitude below allowable release limits.

These are just Canadian stats, but rest assured it's the exact same in every country that has a nuclear plant. The industry is regulated like no other, and the IAEA would go ape shit otherwise (you'd hear it on the news).

Nuclear power is one of the best ways to combat climate change, reactors are being built that can reprocess the nuclear waste to generate more energy, the nuclear industry is probably the most regulated industry in the world, the industry has safety and security built into it's fabric, it's one of the most highly engineered industries in the world (including waste storage...storing nuclear waste is not an engineering problem, it's a political issue nowadays).

Also, please tell me what energy source doesn't have waste? The major materials in renewable sources are mined in China (you think they care about any pollution?), and after 20 years when the renewable farms aren't feasible anymore, where do you think the waste goes? E-waste in general is an extremely massive problem that has very few regulations or oversight.

 

[ExVicis]

Why do people claim that nonsense despite all the decades long experience we have with nuclear energy?

Because it's true? It's not my fault that we have a great source for power we haven't used to it's greatest potential because of all the bad stigma around it..

 

[Frankfurter]

On topic: That's too bad. Maybe we should have had France construct all our reactors for us or something.

You mean the France that is late and way over budget at Hinkley Point (UK)? Or at Flamanville (France)? Or at Olkiluoto (Finland)?

 

[Vanillalite]

Because it's true? It's not my fault that we have a great source for power we haven't used to it's greatest potential because of all the bad stigma around it..

Yes it's just bad stigma. Right that's all it is.

Look I know friends and aquantances that work at Vogtle. It ain't stigma that sunk that shit.

 

[DrROBschiz]

Of course no one wants to invest in nuclear energy. The promises of the 50's never materialized and now it can't compete with other traditional energy sources and renewable energy anymore.

Fusion is also another fantasy. Any energy agenda can't operate with fusion energy as potential energy source, we don't know when fusion energy is ready or if the economical operation of such reactors is even possible in the first place.



Politicans doing non popular things all the time. We don't see more nuclear reactors because of technical and economical reassons. They are expensive, sluggish and there are cheaper and cleaner options avaiable. Renewable energy is seeing growth rates in such a short time which are impossible with nuclear energy at similiar costs.

Fusion isnt fantasy

Its ongoing R&D with huge investment around the globe. Nothing to belittle. Commercial vaibility is the goal on top of research so I wouldnt dismiss it

The current economic crisis of Fission is borne out of what I discussed

You grasp the economic reasons but not the big picture and I agree with you

Unless old fission fails and we can invest in something new fission will continue to die


Modular fission with new fuel types and simpler designs not reliant on solid fuel would be a nice start.

Maybe India and China will make it happen but who knows. The few newer designs I have followed so far just arent up to snuff.

Im all for our renewable future but even with the cost reductions and advancements we are still seeing the EU bend to Russia for Natural gas.

We need Nuclear to be part of the R&D equation and we need a new flagship for Fission

 

[jfkgoblue]

No, it is not.

It has a higher startup cost, but it is cheaper afterwards so in the long run it will cost less.

 

[PdotMichael]

Yes it's just bad stigma. Right that's all it is.

Look I know friends and aquantances that work at Vogtle. It ain't stigma that sunk that shit.

It's like supporting nuclear energy is some energy source hipster thing for some people.

 

[Buba Big Guns]

Yes it's just bad stigma. Right that's all it is.

Look I know friends and aquantances that work at Vogtle. It ain't stigma that sunk that shit.

Actually it is stigma. Nuclear energy, waste, radiation etc. are extremely technical topics that the average person has a hard time grasping. Hell, the first thing most people think of when they hear Nuclear is 'bombs'.

I'd love to see an actual non ideologically motivated explanation of why nuclear is much worse than any other energy source.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

On topic: That's too bad. Maybe we should have had France construct all our reactors for us or something.


Why would the site be radioactive during the 72 hour window?

Fukushima ran on batteries for 24 hours after the earthquake and everything was fine, IIRC. The problem and meltdown only happened after the 24 hours when they weren't able to get high voltage power to all the reactor buildings to turn the pumps back on.

The AP1000 design seems a lot better since you just have to get water into a gravity drain tank (no electricity needed) and 72 hours is a lot of time. If Fukushima had 72 hours of batteries we wouldn't even know its name right now, I'd guess.

Funny enough the French are dealing with major issues in their plants in terms of the quality of the steel used.

Fusion isnt fantasy

Its ongoing R&D with huge investment around the globe. Nothing to belittle. Commercial vaibility is the goal on top of research so I wouldnt dismiss it

The current economic crisis of Fission is borne out of what I discussed

You grasp the economic reasons but not the big picture and I agree with you

Unless old fission fails and we can invest in something new fission will continue to die


Modular fission with new fuel types and simpler designs not reliant on solid fuel would be a nice start.

Maybe India and China will make it happen but who knows. The few newer designs I have followed so far just arent up to snuff.

Im all for our renewable future but even with the cost reductions and advancements we are still seeing the EU bend to Russia for Natural gas.

We need Nuclear to be part of the R&D equation and we need a new flagship for Fission

The EU is bending to Russia for gas because that's how they power the majority of their region.

You can't replace energy infrastructure overnight, and it's expensive to replace infrastructure well before it's EoL.

 

[Frankfurter]

It has a higher startup cost, but it is cheaper afterwards so in the long run it will cost less.

For Hinkley Point C, the UK government guarantees the operator a price of 92.50 pounds per MWh (2012), which rises with inflation; i.e. it will be ~100 or so pounds once that power plants actually goes into operation and will just continue to rise. That's roughly two times the price of what the free market would pay them today. How is that cheap?

 

[PdotMichael]

Fusion isnt fantasy

Fusion isn't relevant for today's energy agendas, well, except the sun which we are using more and more as energy source.

 

[Vanillalite]

Actually it is stigma. Nuclear energy, waste, radiation etc. are extremely technical topics that the average person has a hard time grasping. Hell, the first thing most people think of when they hear Nuclear is 'bombs'.

I'd love to see an actual non ideologically motivated explanation of why nuclear is much worse than any other energy source.

Do you know anything about the time table of Vogtle or are you just gonna talk in some vague idea of what Nuclear could be in your mind?

Do you know how much money and manpower was put into the project? What types of reactors they tried to billed? Why Westinghouse literally went bankrupt and doesn't exist anymore because of this?

 

[Seth Enosh]

You mean the France that is late and way over budget at Hinkley Point (UK)? Or at Flamanville (France)? Or at Olkiluoto (Finland)?

Well, at least they didn't go out of business like Westinghouse did. Benefit of being state supported, you can always get a bailout?

 

[ExVicis]

Yes it's just bad stigma. Right that's all it is.

I never said it was the entire reason, but to pretend that it's not a big part of it is just dishonest.