Germans split as last three nuclear power stations go off grid

[SpaceKadet]

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I just listed huge cost overruns of nuclear power plants in Europe

I could list the only one under construction in America if you like.

Vogtle Nuclear Expansion Price Tag Tops $30 Billion

An updated financial report from one of the owners of the Plant Vogtle nuclear expansion in Georgia shows the cost to build two new reactors has now topped $30 billion, more than double the original price tag expected for the project.

The Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia (MEAG), one of four groups with an ownership stake in the Vogtle expansion, on May 6 raised its total cost forecast for the project to $7.8 billion, up from $7.5 billion. The group’s updated figures, when combined with cost estimates from the other owners, push the cost to build two new 1,100-MW reactors at the site in Waynesboro, Georgia, to at least $30.3 billion.

https://www.powermag.com/vogtle-nuclear-expansion-price-tag-tops-30-billion/

 

And you couldn't be more wrong about the costs of solar and wind not including the cost of manufacturing and disposal. Do you know what LCOE stands for?. What's more solar panels are now being profitably recycled. And Siemens has recently figured out how to recycle wind turbine blades.

 

And clearly you don't know a thing about how rapidly the cost of battery storage cost is declining. You might want to look up Form energy, among others

 

And storage and renewables combined still are a lot cheaper than nuclear.

 

And no one has any clear idea of what it's going to cost to dispose of a nuclear power plant. And the reason for that is it hasn't been done. Plenty of defunct plants now. But no one has yet managed to dispose of even one. Odd, no? And no insurer is willing to fully insure a nuclear power plant. That leaves taxpayers on the hook in case of a major failure.

 

The world of nuclear is changing very rapidly. New reactor technologies are coming online. SMR are the future of nuclear. I'm sure nobody wants to invest in multi TWt nuclear power plants with all the restrictions and regulations. In fact, the biggest showstopper for full deployments of SMR technology, are the government regulations which are focusing primarily on huge TWt NPPs. 

SMR's can be a size of a shipping container, are fully automated, have passive safety, and do not require onsite human operation. Re-fueling in 30-50 years. 

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, SpaceKadet said:

The world of nuclear is changing very rapidly. New reactor technologies are coming online. SMR are the future of nuclear. I'm sure nobody wants to invest in multi TWt nuclear power plants with all the restrictions and regulations. In fact, the biggest showstopper for full deployments of SMR technology, are the government regulations which are focusing primarily on huge TWt NPPs. 

SMR's can be a size of a shipping container, are fully automated, have passive safety, and do not require onsite human operation. Re-fueling in 30-50 years. 

Even if the projections for these still nonexistent plants eventually pan out, we don't need them anymore. Everything is already falling into place for renewables.

[SpaceKadet]

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Even if the projections for these still nonexistent plants eventually pan out, we don't need them anymore. Everything is already falling into place for renewables.

Oh, they would exist if it wasn't for the oil and coal lobbyists in the US. Toshiba 4S 30MWe SMR was ready to be deployed in Alaska several years ago, and then suddenly was stopped by the lobbyists.

 

Then, there is, of course, Akademik Lomonosov. The Russian floating nuclear power station, delivering 35MWe just as I type this. It's deployed in the Arctic, where the sun don't shine for 6 months a year. Would like to see your solar and batteries work there. And more are under way.

 

The problem is not with nuclear power, but the politicians and lobbyists serving their own interests. And the green zealots having their own agenda.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, SpaceKadet said:

Then, there is, of course, Akademik Lomonosov. The Russian floating nuclear power station, delivering 35MWe just as I type this. It's deployed in the Arctic, where the sun don't shine for 6 months a year. Would like to see your solar and batteries work there. And more are under way.

 

 

Would you like to see the wind turbines and batteries work there? 

[SpaceKadet]

12 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Would you like to see the wind turbines and batteries work there? 

Hmm, batteries in minus 50 degrees Celsius that last for 6 months, and wind turbines when there is no wind blowing.... Yeah, sure... You're on! 

[SpaceKadet]

25 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Would you like to see the wind turbines and batteries work there? 

Just to add. When the sun finally shines, it's very low on the horizon and with very low irradiation.

Just acknowledge that your "renewable energy" is not a panacea for worlds energy supply.

 

Additionally, with the global warming coming fast, we can expect a much more violent weather. Your turbines will have to be shut down, if they don't blow down.

 

Then you will say, "Oh, I wish we had that Toshiba 4S reactor buried in the ground giving us electricity, drinking water, and hydrogen to power our vehicles."

Edited April 15, 2023 by SpaceKadet
typo

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, SpaceKadet said:

Hmm, batteries in minus 50 degrees Celsius that last for 6 months, and wind turbines when there is no wind blowing.... Yeah, sure... You're on! 

Such batteries already exist:

https://batteriesnews.com/lithium-sulfur-battery-soaring-next-gen-battery/

 

And even if they didn't exist, who cares? If nuclear is needed for such a niche market, that's okay.

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, SpaceKadet said:

Just to add. When the sun finally shines, it's very low on the horizon and with very low irradiation.

Just acknowledge that your "renewable energy" is not a panacea for worlds energy supply.

 

Additionally, with the global warming coming fast, we can expect a much more violent weather. Your turbines will have to be shut down, if they don't blow down.

 

Then you will say, "Oh, I wish we had that Toshiba 4S reactor buried in the ground giving us electricity, drinking water, and hydrogen to power out vehicles."

You've already demonstrated in your initial invalid comments about renewables that you know very, very little about the renewable situation. Actually, if anything, wind speed will slow down a bit as the difference in temperatures between the polar regions and warmer climes actually lessens.

And there actually is also a lot of progress being made to have wind turbines make hydrogen via electrolysis when their output is not needed at the time their turbines are spinning.

[SpaceKadet]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Such batteries already exist:

https://batteriesnews.com/lithium-sulfur-battery-soaring-next-gen-battery/

 

And even if they didn't exist, who cares? If nuclear is needed for such a niche market, that's okay.

Perhaps the few million people that live in those regions. Basically anywhere above 60 deg North.

[SpaceKadet]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You've already demonstrated in your initial invalid comments about renewables that you know very, very little about the renewable situation. Actually, if anything, wind speed will slow down a bit as the difference in temperatures between the polar regions and warmer climes actually lessens.

And there actually is also a lot of progress being made to have wind turbines make hydrogen via electrolysis when their output is not needed at the time their turbines are spinning.

So actually less wind will generate more electricity... hmm. That would suggest that no wind will generate infinite electricity.... Just like dividing by zero, right.

[placeholder]

6 minutes ago, SpaceKadet said:

So actually less wind will generate more electricity... hmm. That would suggest that no wind will generate infinite electricity.... Just like dividing by zero, right.

Wind turbines have gotten so large and efficient that they will easily make up the difference.

[placeholder]

12 minutes ago, SpaceKadet said:

Perhaps the few million people that live in those regions. Basically anywhere above 60 deg North.

So not so many compared to the roughly 8 billion who live elsewhere.

[SpaceKadet]

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

So not so many compared to the roughly 8 billion who live elsewhere.

You seem to forget that this is where the most technologically advanced countries are located. Those that actually develop your "green renewable" energy solutions. But, by all means, let's get rid of them and bring back the population of the planet to a more manageable 2 billion. Then we'll not need solar, wind turbines and even nuclear..... just use your wood powered stove to heat during winter. 

Edited April 15, 2023 by SpaceKadet

[placeholder]

12 hours ago, SpaceKadet said:

You seem to forget that this is where the most technologically advanced countries are located. Those that actually develop your "green renewable" energy solutions. But, by all means, let's get rid of them and bring back the population of the planet to a more manageable 2 billion. Then we'll not need solar, wind turbines and even nuclear..... just use your wood powered stove to heat during winter. 

How did you construe that I said "get rid of them and bring back the population of the planet to a more manageable 2 billion"? Stop making things up.

I got some good news for you.

Norway currently gets 98.5% of its power from renewables.

Finland currently gets 31%

Sweden currently gets 60%

Denmark currently gets 67%

And they are all working towards increasing their reliance on it.

[SpaceKadet]

Yeah, just ask the Swedes that cannot pay their electric bills what they think about your renewables... A very big chunk of the renewable energy in Sweden comes from hydro, which has been used for decades.

 

Also, Sweden has decided to bring back online nuclear reactors that were previously shut down, and is planning to build more.

 

You should get your facts from a more reliable source. Here's the chart for Sweden. Note the percentage of nuclear.

 

[xtrnuno41]

No problem, we put windturbines in place.

"My" country puts, new project,  69 turbines in the sea, with blades of 97 meter long! Delivering 2.8 % of lands energie consumption. Bet they will replace older ones for the same.

Then comes the question what to do with the blades, as they they need to be replaced now and then. Already a pile of them and waiting on what to do with them.

In the UK they open a new one , some day. Already 2 years behind schedule and i red they will built another 8?! 

It is waiting on nucleair fusion, but we can also already cut on humans. 8 billion is too much.

See movie Youtube 

 

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, SpaceKadet said:

Yeah, just ask the Swedes that cannot pay their electric bills what they think about your renewables... A very big chunk of the renewable energy in Sweden comes from hydro, which has been used for decades.

 

Also, Sweden has decided to bring back online nuclear reactors that were previously shut down, and is planning to build more.

 

You should get your facts from a more reliable source. Here's the chart for Sweden. Note the percentage of nuclear.

 

The Swedish government disagrees with your source:

Swedes use a lot of energy – yet, emissions are low. The key? Renewable energy.

The share of renewable energy used in Sweden keeps growing. Already in 2012 the country reached the government’s 2020 target of 50 per cent. For the power sector, the target is 100 per cent renewable electricity production by 2040...

Wind power has been the fastest growing source of renewable energy around the world in recent years, and capacity is expanding in Sweden. In 2000 Swedish production totalled 0.5 TWh, for 2021 that figure was 27.4 TWh. Today, there are more than 4,300 wind turbines in Sweden.

https://sweden.se/climate/sustainability/energy-use-in-sweden

 

Hmmm.... Whom to believe? BP or Sweden?

[SpaceKadet]

32 minutes ago, placeholder said:

The Swedish government disagrees with your source:

Swedes use a lot of energy – yet, emissions are low. The key? Renewable energy.

The share of renewable energy used in Sweden keeps growing. Already in 2012 the country reached the government’s 2020 target of 50 per cent. For the power sector, the target is 100 per cent renewable electricity production by 2040...

Wind power has been the fastest growing source of renewable energy around the world in recent years, and capacity is expanding in Sweden. In 2000 Swedish production totalled 0.5 TWh, for 2021 that figure was 27.4 TWh. Today, there are more than 4,300 wind turbines in Sweden.

https://sweden.se/climate/sustainability/energy-use-in-sweden

 

Hmmm.... Whom to believe? BP or Sweden?

Government propaganda. Been there recently and general populace are very unhappy with the current energy situation. When peoples electric bill is higher than the rent, something is very wrong.

 

Of course, the problem was created by the Green Party when they were part of the previous coalition government.

Now that the damage is done, it will take long time, and be very expensive to rectify. 

The official propaganda will not tell you how much expensive electricity they have to import, just to cover the usage.

 

And, like I said, they bring back mothballed reactors and planning for new ones.  

Please don't include hydro in your renewables. Hydro has been used by Sweden and Norway for decades now, before even the first ever PV panel was manufactured, and before the word "renewables" existed. The best thing about hydro is that it is part of Base energy supply, 24/7, always on, just like oil/gas/coal and nuclear. Unlike your other "renewables". 

 

Personally, I'm not against renewable energy sources, but I really hate the wind turbines. They are really fugly and destroy the landscape. Looks better on the sea.

Solar is much better, but takes up a lot of space. While a SMR can be deployed on 4,000 square meters, the equivalent solar needs 100-200 times more space. 

[JustAnotherHun]

Sweden is a good example for an energy and environmental protection policy without the  ideological fanatism of the German Greeniban:

"According to current plans we will produce electricity until deep in the 2040ies and this even might not be the end of the plant." (Josef Nylen, speaker of Forsmarks Krafgrupp AB).

This opinion seems spported by the Swedish government, which plans to add further NPPs to the already existing six blocks:

"Sweden is on a shopping tour for new nuclear power plants"

and
"If we want to replace all this with electricity, then it is clear to us: this cannot be done with renewable energies alone. We need nuclear energy for that" (Ebba Busch, energy minister and deputy prime minister)

Right now, 30 percent of the Swedish electricity mix comes from NPPs. Until 2050 it's planed to rise to 50%.

Again Ebba Bush:
"Everybody who is willing to build new (nuclear) power plants in Seden is welcome"

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, JustAnotherHun said:

Sweden is a good example for an energy and environmental protection policy without the  ideological fanatism of the German Greeniban:

"According to current plans we will produce electricity until deep in the 2040ies and this even might not be the end of the plant." (Josef Nylen, speaker of Forsmarks Krafgrupp AB).

This opinion seems spported by the Swedish government, which plans to add further NPPs to the already existing six blocks:

"Sweden is on a shopping tour for new nuclear power plants"

and
"If we want to replace all this with electricity, then it is clear to us: this cannot be done with renewable energies alone. We need nuclear energy for that" (Ebba Busch, energy minister and deputy prime minister)

Right now, 30 percent of the Swedish electricity mix comes from NPPs. Until 2050 it's planed to rise to 50%.

Again Ebba Bush:
"Everybody who is willing to build new (nuclear) power plants in Seden is welcome"

Well, if you believe in the infallibility of Sweden you might have a point. There was what I thought was a fascinating article about what it would take to have a 100% renewable energy system. Without a battery that costs no more than US$20 per KWh to build, it was reckoned not to be feasible. It was also the widely held belief that such a battery wouldn't make an appearance before 2030. But the fact is that a company called Form Energy, has gotten financing to build a $765 million plant to manufacture batteries that cost that or less. And, actually, if you want to get to just 95% of the way, the cost of the battery can be much higher. Actually higher than lithium batteries currently cost to build per kwh..

So where you see nuclear power plants, I see stranded assets.

Here's the article. It's from 2019

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/8/9/20767886/renewable-energy-storage-cost-electricity

And here's the research on which it is based:

https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(19)30300-9

 

[JustAnotherHun]

More good news for environment and the fight against climate change:

 

While Germany shuts down it's last three NPPs and simultaneously re-activates old and dirty coal plants to avoid electricity shortage, Finnland starts Europe's most powerful reactor, providing 1.600 Megawatt in NPP Olkiluoto.

The new reactor will produce 14 percent of Finnland's electricity.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

According to the article I saw on Al Jazeera, Germany will be using coal to produce power instead of the nuclear power- I couldn't make this up.

 

 

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy-environment/wind-farm-destroyed-converted-coal-mine

German energy company RWE is defending its decision to expand its Garzweiler coal mine in and around the small town of Lutzerath, despite it appearing to be “paradoxical.”

[thaibeachlovers]

13 hours ago, SpaceKadet said:

Solar is much better, but takes up a lot of space. While a SMR can be deployed on 4,000 square meters, the equivalent solar needs 100-200 times more space. 

While I agree with most of your post, food can be grown along with solar panels, so it's not an either or situation.

[JustAnotherHun]

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

According to the article I saw on Al Jazeera, Germany will be using coal to produce power instead of the nuclear power- I couldn't make this up.

Sad but true.

Germany re-activated 14 old coal plants and more to come after the shutdown of the last NPPs. In the moment, more than 33% of the electricity production comes from hardcoal (60%) and even brown coal (40%). 14% more than a year before.

Along with that Germany imports nuclear electricity from France and coal electricity from Poland.

So Germany has one of the dirtiest energy mixes at the same level as Turkey and South Africa.

 

2019 the Wall Street Journal wrote "(Germany has) the world's dumbest energy poilcy".

Things have turned to worse since then.

[placeholder]

21 hours ago, JustAnotherHun said:

More good news for environment and the fight against climate change:

 

While Germany shuts down it's last three NPPs and simultaneously re-activates old and dirty coal plants to avoid electricity shortage, Finnland starts Europe's most powerful reactor, providing 1.600 Megawatt in NPP Olkiluoto.

The new reactor will produce 14 percent of Finnland's electricity.

 

"Nuclear reactor Olkiluoto 3 has gone online in Finland some 12 years behind schedule and on a massively inflated budget.  The cost ballooned from an initial estimate of €3 billion ($3.27 billion) to around €11 billion, according to the 2019 World Nuclear Industry Report."

https://www.dw.com/en/finlands-much-delayed-nuclear-plant-launches/a-61108015

 

This is cause for celebration?

[transam]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

"Nuclear reactor Olkiluoto 3 has gone online in Finland some 12 years behind schedule and on a massively inflated budget.  The cost ballooned from an initial estimate of €3 billion ($3.27 billion) to around €11 billion, according to the 2019 World Nuclear Industry Report."

https://www.dw.com/en/finlands-much-delayed-nuclear-plant-launches/a-61108015

 

This is cause for celebration?

You seem to be worried about money that Finland has plenty of. I would also suggest that Finland knows exactly what it is doing.

Don't worry yourself, the Fin's are alright.......????

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, transam said:

You seem to be worried about money that Finland has plenty of. I would also suggest that Finland knows exactly what it is doing.

Don't worry yourself, the Fin's are alright.......????

 I think a reasonable person might want to fact check how the Finns actually felt about the massive cost overruns and delays before making such a contrary-to-common-sense statement.

 

Finland's TVO raises claim against Areva over nuclear reactor delays

Finnish utility Teollisuuden Voima (TVO) on Monday said it has raised its claim against the Areva-Siemens consortium to 2.6 billion euros ($2.9 billion) from a previous 2.3 billion euros over delays in its Olkiluoto-3 nuclear reactor.

The International Chamber of Commerce’s (ICC) arbitration court is currently processing a dispute on cost overruns between the utility and the reactor supplier....

TVO recently scrapped plans for a fourth reactor at Olkiluoto due to current delays at the site.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nuclear-olkiluoto/finlands-tvo-raises-claim-against-areva-over-nuclear-reactor-delays-idUSKCN0Q817K20150803

 

I can just see how you would have written the headline:

Finnis so happy with 3rd nuclear plant costs & delays they cancel the 4th!!!

[transam]

Just now, placeholder said:

 I think a reasonable person might want to fact check how the Finns actually felt about the massive cost overruns and delays before making such a contrary-to-common-sense statement.

 

Finland's TVO raises claim against Areva over nuclear reactor delays

Finnish utility Teollisuuden Voima (TVO) on Monday said it has raised its claim against the Areva-Siemens consortium to 2.6 billion euros ($2.9 billion) from a previous 2.3 billion euros over delays in its Olkiluoto-3 nuclear reactor.

The International Chamber of Commerce’s (ICC) arbitration court is currently processing a dispute on cost overruns between the utility and the reactor supplier....

TVO recently scrapped plans for a fourth reactor at Olkiluoto due to current delays at the site.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nuclear-olkiluoto/finlands-tvo-raises-claim-against-areva-over-nuclear-reactor-delays-idUSKCN0Q817K20150803

 

I can just see how you would have written the headline:

Finnis so happy with 3rd nuclear plant costs & delays they cancel the 4th!!!

No, you are fact-checking, the Fin's are making their own decisions..????

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, transam said:

No, you are fact-checking, the Fin's are making their own decisions..????

I am confident that to your way of thing there is some sort of logical connection between the first part of that sentence and the rest of it. I am also confident that you will make no effort to explain it but instead come up with some sort of lame wisecrack or not reply at all.  

Here's what you wrote:

"You seem to be worried about money that Finland has plenty of. I would also suggest that Finland knows exactly what it is doing.

Don't worry yourself, the Fin's are alright."

 

And yes, the Finns  made their own decisions. Including canceling a plant that was going to be built and suing the people who made the 3rd one.

[transam]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I am confident that to your way of thing there is some sort of logical connection between the first part of that sentence and the rest of it. I am also confident that you will make no effort to explain it but instead come up with some sort of lame wisecrack or not reply at all.  

Here's what you wrote:

"You seem to be worried about money that Finland has plenty of. I would also suggest that Finland knows exactly what it is doing.

Don't worry yourself, the Fin's are alright."

 

And yes, the Finns  made their own decisions. Including canceling a plant that was going to be built and suing the people who made the 3rd one.

Making their own decisions, that is what I said.....????