Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Jan 20, 2018 7:18 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Jul 18, 2009 1:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 9:18 pm
Posts: 1954
Location: Montreal
DV82XL wrote:
do we really need another Gentilly-1 fiasco?

If you are refering to the +ve power coefficient of reactivity, that doesn't apply: the SEU takes care of that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 18, 2009 2:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 24, 2007 2:24 pm
Posts: 437
Location: Montreal, Quebec CANADA
jaro wrote:
DV82XL wrote:
do we really need another Gentilly-1 fiasco?

If you are referring to the +ve power coefficient of reactivity, that doesn't apply: the SEU takes care of that.


All I am saying is the last time AECL tried to build a HWLWR it turned into a disaster. Yes, lessons have been learned and all that, but IMHO this is the wrong time to dive into something new, which is going to have teething problems, even if it turns out in the end to be a good reactor. If it does turn into a White Elephant, Canada is out of the reactor business for good.

Like I said, this company has a good product and a niche market that it should be looking to, not trying to go head to head with the major LWR builders in markets they will never probably will get access to (U.S. Japan and U.K.) like they don't have access now. We both know that the approval process has been used in those countries to keep CANDUs out, what makes anyone think that this will change for the ACRs?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 18, 2009 7:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Dec 31, 2008 12:09 am
Posts: 236
Location: Berkeley, CA
DV82XL wrote:
jaro wrote:
I don't know that the bid price "included the development costs" -- are you absolutely sure of that ?
Certainly, if true, one would expect the FOAK to cost much more than the Nth unit.....


There are certain development costs that will have to be assumed by the first unit that they build, from what I understand some features of the design are not yet complete. Certainly you are right that its not the full cost of development that is being incorporated in the build.

At any rate it's an unproven design - do we really need another Gentilly-1 fiasco?


This is the big problem we face. A new, unproven design faces extreme hurdles, due to first-of-a-kind risks, even if it has clear potential to be better than its competitors (the dinosaurs versus mammals dilemma).

Innovative reactors must be deployed initially at small power levels, even if in the long term they grow to be much larger. The logical market is co-generation of electricity and process heat by modular reactors co-located with chemical facilities. Here the competition is natural gas, so the revenues are much larger than for baseload nuclear plants that compete with coal.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 20, 2009 11:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Oct 16, 2007 4:29 pm
Posts: 27
Location: Canada
It sounds like the G$26 number is not correct.
No surprise there.
-Gary


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 20, 2009 11:43 pm 
Online

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2232
Evolutionary improvements are better accepted than revolutionary ones. I would definitely vote for a salt coolant for some existing reactor. Fast reactors need a change of coolant from sodium.
500MW Indian PFBR was selected partly due to locally made thermal turbines of the size being available. It was considered a Hanuman jump (a big jump) from FTBR. The prototype and first few units must be small ones. 600MW is a good size for revival after a long pause. EPR is also facing FOAKE problems. China is hosting new designs basically to learn from them for own development.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 21, 2009 12:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Dec 31, 2008 12:09 am
Posts: 236
Location: Berkeley, CA
jagdish wrote:
Evolutionary improvements are better accepted than revolutionary ones. I would definitely vote for a salt coolant for some existing reactor. Fast reactors need a change of coolant from sodium.
500MW Indian PFBR was selected partly due to locally made thermal turbines of the size being available. It was considered a Hanuman jump (a big jump) from FTBR. The prototype and first few units must be small ones. 600MW is a good size for revival after a long pause. EPR is also facing FOAKE problems. China is hosting new designs basically to learn from them for own development.


As everyone following this blog knows, at U.C. Berkeley we are focused on fluoride-cooled high temperature reactors, using pebble fuel. The goal is to control the risks associated by fuels and materials, by using fuel that is well understood (TRISO) along with fluoride salt coolant under conditions where it is known to have very good compatibility with graphite and high-nickel alloys (clean, with chemistry control to maintain very low fluorine potential). Finally, we have focused on a coolant temperature range (600 to 704°C) that allows the use of existing, ASME code qualified materials, while still achieving a large increase in thermodynamic efficiency for power conversion (45%).

When TRISO fuels are cooled by fluoride salts, one ends up with very large thermal margins to fuel failure. The maximum credible fuel temperatures under transients in fluoride cooled reactors are about 1100°C, which is 500°C less than the damage threshold of 1600°C. This is a very, very large safety margin to fuel damage compared to any other type of solid-fueled reactor designed to date.

So fluoride cooled, high temperature reactors are interesting, since they can utilize thorium effectively and efficiently but do not need revolutionary advances for fuels or materials.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 21, 2009 7:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Dec 05, 2008 8:50 am
Posts: 337
DV82XL wrote:
jagdish wrote:
Looks like costs due to regulation and not the actual cost of construction killed the Nuclear Power project. A major victory for anti-nukes.


Not really, that has been dealt with in the past, but it would give any outside firm pause.

The real reason the project was too dear was that it also included the development costs for the ACR1000, a reactor as I have said, we should not be building.

I'm convinced that CANDU 6 units could have been built instead successfully


Why don't pursue Candu-9, instead? Like those yet built in the Darlington site, in a configuration of 4 reactors of ~ 900 MWe per site; I think the power size is optimal, not too small to sacrifice some economies of scale, not too big to be too long and expensive to build

I'd see a such development very useful for other countries, too, with no nuke today, like Italy, it shoudn't too difficult (nimby aside) to find only ten sites like Darlington across the country


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 21, 2009 8:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 9:18 pm
Posts: 1954
Location: Montreal
From a constructability point of view, the ACR-1000 should be much better than the old C-9's : Completely different, 3-D design/drafting is now used, greatly reducing the chances of on-site problems during construction. Also, the design is conceived with more modern construction techniques in mind (modular, etc.).
The guys running the construction sites would definitely prefer the new design to the old -- far fewer headaches.
OTOH, the old C-6 design is being updated to EC-6 (Enhanced C-6), complete with 3-D CAD plans....

Gary wrote:
It sounds like the G$26 number is not correct.
No surprise there.
-Gary

Yes... should have guessed it was LUEC-based -- but the responsibility lies with the journalist(s) who reported the figures as though they were capital construction costs....
Presumably the LUEC numbers assumed a 60-year plant life ?
Maybe AECL should have bid on a plant with a 6-year plant life: the lifetime cost would have been waaaay lower than any of the competition :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 30, 2009 10:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Jul 23, 2009 12:23 pm
Posts: 6
Quote:
Maybe AECL should have bid on a plant with a 6-year plant life: the lifetime cost would have been waaaay lower than any of the competition :lol:


Hahahah indeed. AECL provides the lowest bid out of the three companies bidding, and gets turned down because of projections by pro-wind industry cronies. Although the last 9 CANDU reactors where built on time and on budget. The problem with Ontario and Candu has to deal with energy need projections. The last Darlington reactors were delayed because the Ontario power authority put a 3 year hold on construction assuming they wouldn't need the power. So is it CANDU's fault or is it a bureaucratic problem?

_________________
We need nuclear in Ontario's energy mix!!! Sign the petition.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 30, 2009 10:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 28, 2008 10:44 pm
Posts: 3069
Has AECL published their price? So far the only number I've seen is the $26B.
Does anyone know the assumptions behind this number?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 30, 2009 12:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 24, 2007 2:24 pm
Posts: 437
Location: Montreal, Quebec CANADA
Lars wrote:
Has AECL published their price? So far the only number I've seen is the $26B.
Does anyone know the assumptions behind this number?


Obviously $26 billion for two ACRs is absurdly high. There has been no numbers published by AECL, but let’s say the actual bid price is about $5 billion for an ACR-1000. As first of a kind construction, it’s likely that it would be over budget by at least 50%, giving $7.5 billion as the true cost and even that’s being very optimistic.

Added to this very large investments are necessary to bring a new design to fruition. The shakeout of the ACR-1000 would have to done with the cooperation of a Canadian utility willing to share the technical and financial risks if the governments won't. OPG isn't interested and Bruce can't afford to.

Another issue is whether the capability exists in Canada to pioneer a new Generation III+ reactor. I don’t see the required leadership in AECL, its subcontractors or the utilities to take on a project of this magnitude. There is the very real possibility that these units could wind up like the MAPLES - money holes that never work.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 30, 2009 12:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Jul 23, 2009 12:23 pm
Posts: 6
DV82XL wrote:
Lars wrote:
Has AECL published their price? So far the only number I've seen is the $26B.
Does anyone know the assumptions behind this number?



Added to this very large investments are necessary to bring a new design to fruition. The shakeout of the ACR-1000 would have to done with the cooperation of a Canadian utility willing to share the technical and financial risks if the governments won't. OPG isn't interested and Bruce can't afford to.



Yet they don't mind paying feed in tariffs and subsidies to build wind farms which produce extremely expensive power. Ohhh yeah and have to be base-loaded with natural gas!!! I see a disconnect when nuclear power is about 10c per kWH. what's wind something like 3 times that?

_________________
We need nuclear in Ontario's energy mix!!! Sign the petition.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 30, 2009 1:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 24, 2007 2:24 pm
Posts: 437
Location: Montreal, Quebec CANADA
Heavy-water wrote:
Yet they don't mind paying feed in tariffs and subsidies to build wind farms which produce extremely expensive power. Ohhh yeah and have to be base-loaded with natural gas!!! I see a disconnect when nuclear power is about 10c per kWH. what's wind something like 3 times that?


This is one of those cases where two wrongs don't make a right. the ARC is not a product; it's an idea, and one that we cannot afford to develop at this time. It's not that we don't have other options in the way of proven designs with good track records.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 30, 2009 1:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Jul 23, 2009 12:23 pm
Posts: 6
Sorry ARC?
i's stupid and don't know what that means

_________________
We need nuclear in Ontario's energy mix!!! Sign the petition.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 30, 2009 1:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 12, 2008 3:32 pm
Posts: 57
Lars wrote:
Has AECL published their price? So far the only number I've seen is the $26B.
Does anyone know the assumptions behind this number?
There's this:
Dan Yurman wrote:
First, $26 billion is an aggregate number that includes two reactors, turbines, transmission and distribution infrastructure (power lines or T&D), plant infrastructure, and nuclear fuel for 60 years as well as decommissioning costs. The most important number in the whole controversy has gone largely without notice and that is the delivered cost of electricity from the plants is in the range of five cents per kilowatt hour.

...

For comparison purposes, AECL bid two of the new ACR1000, which is an 1,100 MW reactor, which comes to 2,200 MW. At a reported bid price of approximately $6.0 billion, the price per Kw/Hr of the reactors is $2,700/Kw or very close to the price reported in the news media for the Areva reactors.

The spokesman for Areva said in the conference call the bulk of the “all in” price includes “balance of plant,” including turbines, T&D, and local and regional transportation improvements to bring plant components and the construction workforce to the site. It also includes nuclear fuel for 60 years! According to the Toronto Star for July 17, Areva’s total “all in” cost was $23.6 billion compared to AECL’s of $26 billion.
I'm boggled by the idea of buying 60 years' of fuel up-front. Is the figure simply 60 times one year's cost, or did they discount the out-years?

The original Toronto Star article said:
Quote:
Areva's bid came in at $23.6 billion, with two 1,600-megawatt reactors costing $7.8 billion [~US$2,200/kW] and the rest of the plant costing $15.8 billion. It works out to $7,375 per kilowatt, and was based on a similar cost estimate Areva had submitted for a plant proposed in Maryland.

"These would be all-in costs, including building a new overpass and highway expansion to get the equipment in," said a source from one of the bidding teams, who asked to remain anonymous, citing confidentiality agreements signed with the province.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group