Japan Moving Ahead With Plan For Pluthermal- (aka MOX) Fueled Nuclear Plants - AFP

[hatrack]

Bolstered by a plan for low-interest loans for new nuclear reactors announced last month, Japan is forging ahead with nuclear power expansion as part of its objective to reduce emissions. According to the World Nuclear Association, nuclear energy accounts for nearly 30 percent of Japan's total electricity production, with a planned increase to 41 percent by 2017.

Last fall Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama announced the country's goal of slashing greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent from 1990 levels by 2020. "If we want to do this 25 percent reduction, obviously we need more nuclear plants," Shunsuke Kondo, chairman of Japan's Atomic Energy Commission, said recently to The Christian Science Monitor.

The Japanese government also wants to upgrade some of its existing nuclear plants to pluthermal reactors, which use a fuel commonly referred to as plutonium uranium mixed oxide fuel, or MOX fuel. It is calling for electric utilities to use MOX fuel in 16 to 18 of the country's nuclear power plants by the year 2010.

A nuclear reactor at Japan's second pluthermal power generation facility, the Ikata plant operated by Shikoku Electric Power Co., was activated Monday, Kyodo News reports. MOX fuel is scheduled for insertion Thursday, with commercial operation planned for late March, after government inspections.

EDIT

http://www.nuclearpowerdaily.com/reports/Japan_moves_ahead_with_pluthermal_reactors_999.html

[Statistical]

1. Never heard of pluthermal. Heard of MOX but not this synonym.

Maybe it is name brand MOX. I hate that crappy store brand MOX.

Seriously though. The anti-nukkers don't like Japan. They kill the whole "it takes decades to build a reactor so why even try" meme.

A very recent reactor. Construction began in 2001 and it went critical in 2005.

SHIKA-2
http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.prdeta.htm?country=JP&site=SHIKA&units=&refno=59&link=HOT&sort=&sortlong=Alphabetic

From concrete pour to first criticality = 4.5 years. Emission free commercial power generated less than a year later.

WTF? It is gospel that reactors take 10, 12, 15, 17, 20+ years to build (I notice it just seems to get long with each post). Maybe Godzilla helped.

Maybe it was fluke?
Tomari - 3
http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.prdeta.htm?country=JP&site=TOMARI&units=&refno=64&link=HOT&sort=&sortlong=Alphabetic
Concrete Pour to commercial power = 5 years, 1 month, 8 days.

Mark you calenders. Can Japan go for 3 for 3 before the world ends in 2012?
SHIMANE-3
http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.prdeta.htm?country=JP&site=SHIMANE&units=&refno=65&link=HOT&sort=&sortlong=Alphabetic
Construction Start Date: 2007/10/12
Commercial Operations: 2011/12/15 (projected)

[wtmusic]

3. "Maybe Godzilla helped"

:rofl:

Don't think so, he's never had much luck at building things.

[kristopher]

4. Horsehockey...

What is the length of time from the beginning of planning until the delivery of electricity? You are once again engaging in "data-trimming".

The time between planning and operation of a nuclear power plant includes the to obtain a site and construction permit, the time between construction permit approval and issue, and the construction time of the plant. In March, 2007, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved the first request for a site permit in 30 years. This process took 3.5 years.

The time to review and approve a construction permit is another 2 years and the time between the construction permit approval and issue is about 0.5 years. Thus, the minimum time for preconstruction approvals (and financing) is 6 years.

We estimate the maximum time as 10 years. The time to construct a nuclear reactor depends significantly on regulatory requirements and costs. Because of inflation in the 1970s and more stringent safety regulation on nuclear power plants placed shortly before and after the Three-Mile Island accident in 1979, U.S. nuclear plant construction times increased from around 7 years in 1971 to 12 years in 1980.

The median construction time for reactors in the U.S. built since 1970 is 9 years. U.S. regulations have been streamlined somewhat, and nuclear power plant developers suggest that construction costs are now lower and construction times shorter than they have been historically. However, projected costs for new nuclear reactors have historically been underestimated and construction costs of all new energy facilities have recently risen.

Nevertheless, based on the most optimistic future projections of nuclear power construction times of 4-5 years and those times based on historic data, we assume future construction times due to nuclear power plants as 4-9 years.

Thus, the overall time between planning and operation of a nuclear power plant ranges from 10-19 years.

Download full article here:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm

[Statistical]

5. Who cares about planning time? The interest clock isn't ticking.

All of the 28 proposed reactors have already received early site licenses so that is 2 years behind us. NRC states approval time-line for COL is 3 years not 3.5 and most of the reactors already submitted the applications years ago (2007 & 2008). That is another 2-3 years gone.

So rather than looking at 6+ years for approval the first few reactors will be approved in 2011 (just a year in a half away) with another half dozen approved in 2012 and then a steady stream of 4-6 a year after that. Throw in construction time of 5 years and we can see a lot of reactors going critical in 2016-2018 timeframe.

The nice thing about having a pool of 28 reactors is while those are being built new applications will come in resulting in a rotating queue of approvals which will be ready just in time as construction finishes on reactors under construction.

While each individual reactor may take 4 years of planning and another 5 years to construct half that time has already been "paid" and once the process starts rolling we can see new reactor starts every year.

Kinda blows away that tired we won't see any new reactors for decades meme you keep spouting?

Nice of you to backtrack. Most of the studies you cite show a 10 year construction + 5 year regulatory timeline.

Mark your calender the North Anna's COL will be ready for issuance in a couple months (to bad they chose to build ESBWR or they could have beaten GA by a year).
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/north-anna.html

[kristopher]

6. Anyone who cares about calculating total avoided CO2 emissions - obviously not you.

That's why comprehensive independent analysis are better than slanted, cherry picked industry data.

Abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security.

Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[Statistical]

7. Nice of you to pick that one. It shows 19 year timeline

So a study based on first reactor being completed 19 years from now and being built one at a time isn't that valid when they will be going online in 7 (regulatory process for current reactors started 4 years ago) and 3 are planned to begin construction in 2011.

Here (your link)
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm
Click Supplemental Info

Maybe you should send them an email to rerun the numbers with:
* 7-10 year combined timeline vs false 19 years Line K26
* no CO2 cost of nuclear war to pad the figures Line K30
* 60 year lifespan not 40 Line K25
* realistic 5 year construction not 10.
* gas centrifuge not gas diffusion for enrichment energy costs
* 92% proven capacity factor not 85%. line K2
* smaller capacity size of 847 MW vs planned reactors of all 1000 MW+ line K1

See that author makes it easy to pick it apart because he provides all assumptions in chart form.
Someday I might rerun his study using proper numbers. If you put all kinds of garbage in you can make a study say anything you want.
I was hoping you would post this one. It is your favorite debunked study.

[kristopher]

8. You have no idea when they will go online.

You are fabricating what is contained in Jacobson's paper. For example, even though I just quoted his summary of the timeline you make a false statement regarding it. Here is the quote from his paper:

The time between planning and operation of a nuclear power plant includes the to obtain a site and construction permit, the time between construction permit approval and issue, and the construction time of the plant. In March, 2007, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved the first request for a site permit in 30 years. This process took 3.5 years.

The time to review and approve a construction permit is another 2 years and the time between the construction permit approval and issue is about 0.5 years. Thus, the minimum time for preconstruction approvals (and financing) is 6 years.

We estimate the maximum time as 10 years. The time to construct a nuclear reactor depends significantly on regulatory requirements and costs. Because of inflation in the 1970s and more stringent safety regulation on nuclear power plants placed shortly before and after the Three-Mile Island accident in 1979, U.S. nuclear plant construction times increased from around 7 years in 1971 to 12 years in 1980.

The median construction time for reactors in the U.S. built since 1970 is 9 years. U.S. regulations have been streamlined somewhat, and nuclear power plant developers suggest that construction costs are now lower and construction times shorter than they have been historically. However, projected costs for new nuclear reactors have historically been underestimated and construction costs of all new energy facilities have recently risen.
Nevertheless, based on the most optimistic future projections of nuclear power construction times of 4-5 years and those times based on historic data, we assume future construction times due to nuclear power plants as 4-9 years.
Thus, the overall time between planning and operation of a nuclear power plant ranges from 10-19 years.

Here is what you JUST wrote about it: "* realistic 5 year construction not 10."

He has included the examples you point to for 5 years, in fact he included a 4 year construction period. However, unlike you, he also looks at the evidence that it will take more time than you want people to believe.

Remember, you are engaged in the deceptive practice of "lowballing", which is when there is an estimate of costs (in this case opportunity costs) that is purposely estimated on the low side in order to secure a hard to break commitment from the customer (in this case the taxpayers).

Your other claims about the problems with Jacobson's paper are equally specious.

[Statistical]

9. No they aren't I provided you the exact location.

His Assumption: 40 year lifespan on new nuclear reactors
Reality: All GenIII+ designs proposed are rated for 60 years.
Result: Underestimates lifespan = higher amortized CO2 cost from construction.

His Assumption: 874 MW assumed capacity.
Reality: The AP1000 is 1150MW and EBSWR is 1350MW.
Result: Underestimates capacity = more reactors required to reach conditions of "study"

His Assumption: 85% capacity factor.
Reality: US capacity factor is 92%
Result: Underestimates annual output = more reactors required to reach conditions of "study".

His Assumption: 19 (not 5 or 10 but 19) total timeframe for reactor planning & construction
Reality: 7-10 year timeframe
Result: Lengthens time before CO2 reductions to the detriment of nuclear power


Every single assumption (I provided exact line numbers) for nuclear overestimates length, time, cost (in CO2) while underestimating output, capacity, benefit.

I mean if I did a "study" that said wind has 10 year construction time, used turbine sizes (1/4 MW) from 5 years ago, showed 10% capacity factor, and windfarm lifespan of 5 years guess what? Wind would "rank" poorly. That is all he has done.

The sad thing is if you look at it (line K33) he projects a 31% reduction in CO2 by nuclear even with his utterly stupid assumptions.

[kristopher]

10. Every single assumption you've provided is cherry picked to enhance your lowball.

He is looking at the TOTALITY OF THE EVIDENCE. That is the reason that independent analysis is better, it gives us a BALANCED perspective instead of a LOWBALL.

[Statistical]

11. How is it balanced if every single one is biased against nuclear?

That is like saying you need 12 Klansman in the jury box of a black man to get "Balanced perspective".

Those are the only major assumptions related to time for nuclear to replace fossil fuels. Every single one is biased against nuclear. Combined you have a geometric increase in the time/cost/CO2 for nuclear "scenario". Yet in you opinion that makes it "balanced"?

Dude you have lost even the slightest bit of credibility you are bordering on climate denialist territory.


Up is down, War is peace, totally biased one side is balanced. :rofl:

Keep it up man.

[kristopher]

12. Another false statement.

Where have you incorporated any possibility that your optimum performance scenario is not going to materialize. Are you denying that all of the OTHER evidence that Jacobson uses is real?

If "every single one is biased against nuclear" there is a possibility that needs to be considered - reality is biased against nuclear, not the analyst. This is especially true since you make this claim about EVERY analysis that reflects poorly on nuclear. Yet, we've seen time after time after time that the nuclear industry claims are FALSE. Again and again they've said "we'll bget it right this time" only to have that claim also prove false after another 100 billion dollars goes down the drain...

Lowball estimates by the nuclear industry are more biased than those of independent qualified analysts. Your argument is about as sensible as that made by climate deniers who claim researchers are biased because they want funding while ignoring the fact that everything they spout comes from the fossil fuel industry.

[Statistical]

13. Except we do have reactors w/ 60 year lifespan that is an easy mistake.

We do have 1000 MW + reactors. Nobody anywhere on the planet is building, planning, or considering a Gen II 800 MW plant.
We do know Japan was able to build 4 reactors since 2000 in less than 5 years each.
We do know that capacity factor of nuclear plants in 92% in the US (96% for the 8 newest reactors).

The IPCC (yeah they are nuke shills) rates lifecycle CO2 emissions for nuclear at 40g per KWh. He uses 90g PLUS CONSTRUCTION. Lifecycle CO@ includes everything from mining to enrichment to construction to fueling. That is why it is called lifecycle.

I mean those are easy and verifiable.

The author doesn't even cosider them. He has low end and high end estimate. Yet uses worse and not even realistic as the two elements for nuclear.

That "study" is a friggin joke. HE INCLUDES THE COST OF A NUCLEAR WAR in sencario for more reactors. How is US who is already a nuclear power and dismantling nuclear bombs building a dozen new reactors going to increase likelihood of nuclear war? It is utter BS. That alone contributes about 1/3 of the CO2 "cost" of nuclear power in the United States.

On the other hand the timeline for wind is all biased to perfection. He uses 800 MW as "new" nuclear capacity however he uses 5 MW as "new wind" (this was 3 years ago when 5 MW wind was just hitting the market.

He gives wind a capacity factor of 46% (which is very high end of wind) yet gives nuclear 85% which is 7% below the easily verifiable capacity factor.

There are dozens and dozens and dozens of examples like that.

Virtually every single sat is boosted on the highend for wind and pushed to worst case scenario for nuclear.

All the study does is prove how powerful selection bias can be.

[kristopher]

14. Your bitch boils down to the fact that he doesn't use YOUR numbers exclusively

You want to pitch a lowball so that more public funds will be spent on nuclear power - THAT IS YOUR SPECIFIC GOAL.

Jacobson wants to accomplish the goal of understanding the best response to climate change and energy security. You have no basis for accusing him of a bias against your preferred technology except that his analysis reflects poorly on it. In your mind that means he MUST be biased. If you review his list of publications there is evidence of only one priority for Jacobson - he wants to address the issue of climate change as best as we possibly can.

YOU on the other hand, want to build more nuclear reactors. You have zero interest in the environmental issues (evidenced by glossing over the impact of nuclear waste) and you have absolutely no regard for the truth.

As for the objection to including the possibility of a nuclear detonation, why shouldn't that be included? The possibility is a real consequence of pursuing nuclear power as a solution to climate change. You want to draw boundaries on issues like this that are not supported by the research in those fields. IF we pursue nuclear, then that is going to affect what happens in the rest of the world. Whether it is convenient for your beliefs or not, the development you seek has impacts in the area of nuclear weapons proliferation. Nuclear weapons proliferation has an impact on the possibility of a nuclear exchange. To NOT include this possibility in an overarching assessment of the options is irresponsible.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7839893&mesg_id=7843118

You can't just pick the good arguments and pretend the rest of the story doesn't exist. And it isn't biased to want to look at the entire picture.

So I say again:

Where have you incorporated any possibility that your optimum performance scenario is not going to materialize. Are you denying that all of the OTHER evidence that Jacobson uses is real?

If "every single one is biased against nuclear" there is a possibility that needs to be considered - reality is biased against nuclear, not the analyst. This is especially true since you make this claim about EVERY analysis that reflects poorly on nuclear. Yet, we've seen time after time after time that the nuclear industry claims are FALSE. Again and again they've said "we'll bget it right this time" only to have that claim also prove false after another 100 billion dollars goes down the drain...

Lowball estimates by the nuclear industry are more biased than those of independent qualified analysts. Your argument is about as sensible as that made by climate deniers who claim researchers are biased because they want funding while ignoring the fact that everything they spout comes from the fossil fuel industry.

[Statistical]

15. Exclusively? WTF? He didn't use one number that is even realistic.

Lets take an easy one.

Currently 8 reactors are under construction around the world
Currently 46 reactors are in the planning /regulatory process around the world.

NOT A SINGLE ONE IS LESS THAN 1000MW (1GW). Not one.
Not one out of those 54 reactors is less than 1000 MW.
Nobody even sells reactors that are less than 1000MW.
The designs being considered range from 1100MW to 1350MW. A realistic estimate would be 1200MW the average output of reactors being constructed. A good "estimate" might even be 1000MW (to get low end). Even better would be to use both 1000MW and 1350MW.

Yet you are telling me the author picking 840MW (despite no reactor having this output) is an accident or a "good estimate" and not an attempt to undervalue the power output of each plant by 22%?

85% capacity factor * 840 MW provides an input to the study that each plant is worth 6 billion kWh.
92% capacity factor * 1200 MW provides an input to the study that each plant is worth 9.7 billion kWh.

That single pair of "mistakes" underestimates the emission free generated by each reactor annually not by 5%, 10%, or even 20% but 35%

There is room for discussion on costs, output, timelines, etc. However when each assumption is so chosen to be so far from anything resembling reality it isn't "study" it is a joke.

Is the IPCC a bunch of nuclear shills? They estimate the lifecycle CO2 cost of nuclear to be 40g per kWh. This author estimates it to be 287g per kWh. Once again a deviation of not 10%, or 20% but 600%.

For the regulatory timeline he includes the time for an ESP (early site permit) and COL however if you are obtaining a COL and time is of the essence no ESP is needed. Of the 28 proposed reactors only half obtained ESP. Also obtaining an ESP reduces the timeframe for COL approval because it is the same environmental study.

Still instead of saying 4 years or 2 + 3 years he decides to "accidentally" add them together and say 2 + 4 = 6. Either this guy is the most "accidental" researcher on the planet or he is pushing an agenda.


Really?

[kristopher]

16. Those aren't "mistakes" in any sense.

Again for the hard of hearing - those are averages of all the data reviewed. You want him to engage in the same kind of cherry picking that the nuclear industry does; a practice that is proven to be extremely poor at predicting actual outcomes.

You can't just pick the good arguments and pretend the rest of the story doesn't exist. And it isn't biased to want to look at the entire picture.

So I say again:

Where have you incorporated any possibility that your optimum performance scenario is not going to materialize. Are you denying that all of the OTHER evidence that Jacobson uses is real?

If "every single one is biased against nuclear" there is a possibility that needs to be considered - reality is biased against nuclear, not the analyst. This is especially true since you make this claim about EVERY analysis that reflects poorly on nuclear. Yet, we've seen time after time after time that the nuclear industry claims are FALSE. Again and again they've said "we'll bget it right this time" only to have that claim also prove false after another 100 billion dollars goes down the drain...

Lowball estimates by the nuclear industry are more biased than those of independent qualified analysts. Your argument is about as sensible as that made by climate deniers who claim researchers are biased because they want funding while ignoring the fact that everything they spout comes from the fossil fuel industry.

[hunter]

2. Recycling plutonium as fuel is a reasonable thing to do.

What else are you going to do with it? Put it in a hole in the ground?

It's even better when the MOX fuel is made from nuclear weapons.