Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Aug 20, 2018 7:44 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 30, 2009 2:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Jul 23, 2009 12:23 pm
Posts: 6
So the all in cost for two reactors over 60 years is $26 billion?
i would love to see a comparison fro the all in costs for wind (plus natural gas base-load) for the same amount of power over the same time period. am i wrong to assume it would be much higher.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 30, 2009 2:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 24, 2007 2:24 pm
Posts: 437
Location: Montreal, Quebec CANADA
Heavy-water wrote:
So the all in cost for two reactors over 60 years is $26 billion?
i would love to see a comparison fro the all in costs for wind (plus natural gas base-load) for the same amount of power over the same time period. am i wrong to assume it would be much higher.


Every effort is made to handicap the development of nuclear energy and the current review process seems admirably designed for that purpose. This seems to be because there are forces that have a real motive for trying to cripple the growth of nuclear power. They have leveraged the political process to heap as many chains on nuclear as they can in an attempt to make it less attractive to investment.

Capital costs for nuclear plants generally account for 45-75% of the total nuclear electricity generation costs, compared to 25-60% for coal plants and 15-20% for gas plants. Nuclear power’s advantage is in its low fuel costs, relative to fossil, and especially to gas fired generating stations. Design organizations quote generation cost (capital, operation and maintenance, and fuel) targets in the range of 3-5 US cents/kWh, which are highly competitive with fossil alternatives. It is only by keeping the non-fuel costs of nuclear power as high as possible that fossil has a chance.

The same with renewables, laws and subsidies favoring this approach are designed not just to help this sector, but to further distort the market away from nuclear. Without contributing any reliable capacity, wind will nonetheless serve to make nuclear, less profitable. Existing plants will be caught in a trap and new construction will be discouraged entirely. Already in the U.K. the British Nuclear Group is complaining that it can’t build any new reactors if they have to compete against subsidized wind farms. Anti-nuclear activists are turning handsprings, claiming joyously that wind is finally replacing nuclear. But that’s not what’s happening. Instead, nothing will be replacing existing capacity–namely, the coal burning plants that are one of the largest sources of carbon emissions–as demand increases in years ahead. That means carbon emissions won’t be meaningfully reduced, since coal plants will have to stay on line and more gas plants built to provide backup.

In this case it is exacerbated by the introduction of an untried and unproven design and an organization that no longer inspires confidence. The cancellation of this project has probably saved the nuclear industry in Canada.


Last edited by DV82XL on Jul 30, 2009 3:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 30, 2009 2:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Jul 23, 2009 12:23 pm
Posts: 6
Couldn't agree more DV82XL!!!

I live in Ontario which just passed the Green Energy Act. This bogus legislation really just boils down to a payout to the wind/gas industry. And the plan to replace all coal in the province by 2014 isn't at all possible now that Bruce Power and the province have decided against building new nuclear reactors. Citizens of Ontario are being eco-guilted into paying through the nose for renewable energy which hasn't been prove n to lower Co2 emissions. Its a travesty.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 30, 2009 3:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 24, 2007 2:24 pm
Posts: 437
Location: Montreal, Quebec CANADA
Heavy-water wrote:
Couldn't agree more DV82XL!!!.


Thanks, by the way are you a principle of the PICKCANDU 2009 website, or just shilling for them? I ask because I would like to make contact to discuss other actions to support nuclear energy in Canada


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 06, 2009 3:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Jul 23, 2009 12:23 pm
Posts: 6
I support CANDU over westinghouse and Areva but i don't work for them. I would love to talk about nuclear and some of the actions to be taken to support, and promote nuclear power as a clear pragmatic alternative to coal and natural gas. please send me literature and links!!!!!

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 06, 2009 10:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2237
Canada has been the pioneer of heavy water production and heavy water reactors. If the new design is too costly, stick to the current smaller one. Capital cost shall be less but personnel costs shall be more.
I am sure the Canada can now develop Molten Chloride(Cl37) fast Reactors. They shall eat up all the spent fuel of CANDUs and run practically forever on this diet. Some thorium can be irradiated in the blanket/second fluid as a distant contingency. Indians are doing this with LMFBR.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 14, 2009 8:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2009 11:07 pm
Posts: 4
So the conventional nuclear industry in Canada wants us to spend $26B on 2 new reactors and $24B on a waste burial facility. That's an eye-watering total of $50B! Oh and don't forget to throw in another billion or 2 to solve the medical isotope crisis.

I bet for 2/3 of that total, or $33B, or Canada could engineer a production LFTR, build and validate the prototype model, set up a factory to push them off an assembly line, and kick-start a thorium fuel mining industry.

Lets compare and contrast:

Conventional nuclear: $50B buys you two ridiculously overpriced reactors, a big radioactive hole in the ground that we'll need to monitor until the end of time, and a new reactor design that will have an extremely hard time competing on the world market with conventional light water reactors.

LFTR: $33B buys you a revolutionary reactor design and the infrastructure to mass produce and fuel it. Unlike the new Candu's, this reactor would destroy all competition and create a huge export industry for Canada (for fuel, reactors and technical knowhow). The new reactors would burn up our existing waste making burial unnecessary and would assure a constant supply of medical isotopes. As an added bonus, you'd also solve global warming, the world energy crisis and help the world avoid a good number of resource wars.

How can we get the leaders in this country to realize this opportunity and act on it?!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 14, 2009 9:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Oct 29, 2007 6:27 pm
Posts: 277
Patrick Arnesen wrote:
I bet for 2/3 of that total, or $33B, or Canada could engineer a production LFTR, build and validate the prototype model, set up a factory to push them off an assembly line, and kick-start a thorium fuel mining industry.

Lets compare and contrast:

Conventional nuclear: $50B buys you two ridiculously overpriced reactors, a big radioactive hole in the ground that we'll need to monitor until the end of time, and a new reactor design that will have an extremely hard time competing on the world market with conventional light water reactors.

LFTR: $33B buys you a revolutionary reactor design and the infrastructure to mass produce and fuel it. Unlike the new Candu's, this reactor would destroy all competition and create a huge export industry for Canada (for fuel, reactors and technical knowhow). The new reactors would burn up our existing waste making burial unnecessary and would assure a constant supply of medical isotopes. As an added bonus, you'd also solve global warming, the world energy crisis and help the world avoid a good number of resource wars.

How can we get the leaders in this country to realize this opportunity and act on it?!


I couldn't disagree more. Evolutionary design have as an advantage that they can be introduced by a small change in safety regulations. Revolutionary designs have to be based on a totally new regulatory framework, as design basis can't be copied from current practices. This latter has a significant cost and workload associated with it. Furthermore I doubt that any power reactor will be used (or allowed to be used) for the simultaneous production of radioisotopes.

In addition, other countries do not necessarily agree with the framework for the revolutionary design of a MSR. Therefore your design would face a limited market, or be faced with additional licensing costs.

As for conventional nuclear power, the argumentation used around the waste issue lacks technical realism and is not in the least beneficial for nuclear power in general.

_________________
Liking All Nuclear Systems, But Looking At Them Through Dark And Critical Glasses.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 15, 2009 12:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2237
Canada is second home to me as my son has settled there.
In my earlier post I have suggested sticking to existing designs with no First Of A Kind Engineering costs. As for irradiated fuel,the fast spectrum molten chloride salt reactor would be a better choice as it shall burn the U238 0f irradiated fuel as well. India, who followed Canada with PHWR, are going the fast reactor way. It may, however, have an effect on the uranium sales of the world's biggest exporter.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 22, 2009 12:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2009 11:07 pm
Posts: 4
Thank you for your reply. Quite a bit in your response that I'd like to follow up on.

Quote:
Evolutionary design have as an advantage that they can be introduced by a small change in safety regulations. Revolutionary designs have to be based on a totally new regulatory framework, as design basis can't be copied from current practices. This latter has a significant cost and workload associated with it.

From what I've read it sounds like a huge part of the cost of the new Candu design is tied to the regulatory process. If you have to blow billions on regulatory approval, might as well push through a revolutionary design that stands a reasonable chance of displacing coal. The inherent safety features of LFTR (unpressurized, can't explode) might actually mean the less red tape is required?? (probably being naive here)

Quote:
Furthermore I doubt that any power reactor will be used (or allowed to be used) for the simultaneous production of radioisotopes.

Could you please provide an explanation of the problems that would be associated with extracting medical radioisotopes from a LFTR that's being used for power generation?

Quote:
In addition, other countries do not necessarily agree with the framework for the revolutionary design of a MSR. Therefore your design would face a limited market, or be faced with additional licensing costs.

I would hope the inherent benefits of LFTR would motivate other countries to expedite its regulatory approval. (This is a normative statement)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 22, 2009 1:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 24, 2007 2:24 pm
Posts: 437
Location: Montreal, Quebec CANADA
Patrick Arnesen wrote:
Thank you for your reply. Quite a bit in your response that I'd like to follow up on.

From what I've read it sounds like a huge part of the cost of the new Candu design is tied to the regulatory process. If you have to blow billions on regulatory approval, might as well push through a revolutionary design that stands a reasonable chance of displacing coal. The inherent safety features of LFTR (unpressurized, can't explode) might actually mean the less red tape is required?? (probably being naive here)


You are correct in that there is going to be a huge cost from the regulatory process for the ACR, but unfortunately even more for something like the LFTR in the Canadian context. As a side note, the CNSC has started to try and make nice over the ACR, saying that at first glance, they expect no major issues in giving it approval. I suspect because the commissioners have realized they have no friends in the Harper government, and many in the Progressive-Conservative caucus would like to see a top to bottom overhaul of the whole Canadian nuclear industry and its regulators.



Patrick Arnesen wrote:
Could you please provide an explanation of the problems that would be associated with extracting medical radioisotopes from a LFTR that's being used for power generation?


Actually there is a significant amount of radioisotope production done with CANDUs, however the neutron spectrum is not conducive to making the ones that came from the NRU

Patrick Arnesen wrote:
I would hope the inherent benefits of LFTR would motivate other countries to expedite its regulatory approval. (This is a normative statement)


We can all hope - but I think we all know better when it comes to this kind of thing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 24, 2009 11:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Jan 27, 2009 12:09 am
Posts: 134
Location: Toronto, Canada
This issue points out why we need more activism to reach Federal government. How many LFTR's could we build for 26 Billion? Actually I'm not sure on exact details but brochure put out by Ontario Clean Air Alliance states some lies probably there is a website OntariosGreenFuture.ca

They are getting some mileage still. I picked up a brochure that seems out of date to say that McGuinty is still seeking $26 Billion from Federal government.

This is the brochure propoganda that's still going around.

Has big block letters "NO NEED for COSTLY NUKES"
Has little girl blowing a dandelion as if to say not possible in a nuclear future.

_________________
JUST ONE LFTR PROTOTYPE WOULD BE A HUGE BOOST


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 20, 2009 10:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2237
A tongue-in-cheek comment:-
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blog ... india.aspx
While the sale is unlikely, co-operation is quite likely and desirable.
India is quite keen to buy nuclear fuel. Canadian companies can sell the fuel or fuel bundles to India. The biggest exporter shall have to export under conditions similar to France or Russia.
Indian 700MW reactor could be tried out in Canada. If successful, it can be imported to avail of low labour costs or built under license.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 20, 2009 10:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Jan 24, 2007 2:24 pm
Posts: 437
Location: Montreal, Quebec CANADA
jagdish wrote:
A tongue-in-cheek comment:-
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blog ... india.aspx
While the sale is unlikely, co-operation is quite likely and desirable.


I wouldn't write it off as all hot air Jagdish, in many ways the two companies getting together to form a joint export division would be a great idea and could benefit both. There is no point in having the two heavy-water manufactures competing in a world dominated by the light-water players, together they could offer a full line of reactors from 250MW to 1500MW at very competitive prices.

And it's not like the two companies broke ties completely when the governments did, both kept a information conduit open with each other via the CANDU Owners Group that India was not expelled from after the nuclear test.

Is it a done deal? Not by a long shot, but I have a felling that people are talking and the Globe article was a bit of a balloon to see what the Canadian public might think.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 20, 2009 5:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 9:18 pm
Posts: 1947
Location: Montreal
The following was posted by a colleague today on cdn-nucl listserv....

Quote:
From: cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA [mailto:cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA] On Behalf Of Brown, Morgan
Sent: November-20-09 3:16 PM
To: Andrew Daley; Nuclear
Subject: RE: [cdn-nucl-l] India should buy AECL

UNRESTRICTED | ILLIMITÉ

I'm the one responsible for the CNS "claim" that an overall CANDU fleet performance is closer to 80%. It's on the (new) CNS web site under education, then media, then "CANDU reliability". It's a few months out of date, partly because Bruce Power data is now rarely published in the public media (e.g., Nucleonics Week). Nonetheless, based on as-built capacities (i.e., no de-rating of units allowed), CANDU performance is about 80% for the fleet in Ontario, and somewhere closer to 85 - 88% for the CANDU 6 fleet (if you choose to remove the units shut for refurb). It all depends upon how you add the numbers, as to exactly what number you get.

I was astonished to see a claim of 90% for India's reactors. This is certainly not borne out by the country stats of Nuclear Engineering Int'l, which ranks India closer to 50% than 90%.

Morgan Brown
(me own opinions, written from my sick bed)


-----Original Message-----
From: cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA [mailto:cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA]On Behalf Of Andrew Daley
Sent: November 20, 2009 2:59 PM
To: Nuclear
Subject: [cdn-nucl-l] India should buy AECL

this was an interesting article...

Despite the fact that I obviously don't share the writers political opinions and I happen to think nuclear weapons are a big deal, that is...

But several points I felt some of you on this list may wish to comment on... namely:

1. "Indian heavy water reactors have been a scintillating success and, according to the Journal of Nuclear Engineering and Design, have achieved over 90% capacity utilization in the last decade. "

2. "As a result, India developed an indigenous series of heavy water reactors that dramatically outperform CANDUs in performance and cost attributes."

3. "By contrast, the Ontario Clean Air Alliance reports the province's fleet of CANDUs sported a 65% utilization rate in 2005. The Canadian Nuclear Society claims an overall CANDU fleet performance of closer to 80%."

Any thoughts?

-Andrew


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