Worldwide nuclear energy diminishing; "Peak nuclear energy" was in 2006

[bananas]

http://nuclear-news.net/2010/05/06/worldwide-nuclear-energy-diminishing/

Worldwide nuclear energy diminishing

Another drop in nuclear generation, World Nuclear News, 05 May 2010 …Annual generation of nuclear power has continued on a slight downward trend, decreasing 2% last year to 2558 TWh, according to the latest estimates……One factor in nuclear power’s perfomance since 2007 has been the prolonged shutdown of large reactors at Kashiwazaki Kariwa in Japan following the Niigata-Chuetsu-Oki earthquake. …….Two reactors came back into service during 2009 with five still under repair.

Last year saw the shutdown of four reactors but the start-up of only two. Closures included France’s Phenix, a prototype fast reactor which produced 233 MWe, and Lithuania’s Ignalina 2 which produced 1185 MWe but has been closed early as a condition of EU entry. This was the last of the EU-motivated shutdowns that have taken away a total of 4806 MWe since 2002.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/EE_Another_drop_in_nuclear_generation_0505102.html

Another drop in nuclear generation
05 May 2010

Annual generation of nuclear power has continued on a slight downward trend, decreasing 2% last year to 2558 TWh, according to the latest estimates.


Graph - Nuclear power 1971-2009

<snip>

Related article and detailed report from last year:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x207173
Fri Aug-28-09 02:39 AM

NEI Magazine: Nuclear decline set to continue, says report

http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectioncode=132&storyCode=2053966

Nuclear decline set to continue, says report
27 August 2009

Nuclear will continue to decline according to a new report. At this point there is no obvious sign that the international nuclear industry could turn the decline into a promising future, it says.

"The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2009" by independent consultant, Mycle Schneider, professor for energy policy Steve Thomas, consultant Antony Froggatt and Doug Koplow, was released on 27 August. Commissioned by the German federal ministry of environment, nature conservation and reactor safety, it gives facts on the nuclear power plants in operation, under construction and in planning phases throughout the world. It also assesses the economic performance of past and current nuclear projects including Calvert Cliffs, Flamanville and Olkiluoto.

The report says that there seems to be a “widening gap” between the industrial reality with its current trends and the "perception of some sort of nuclear renaissance”.

<snip>

The 2.5MB pdf can be downloaded from http://www.neimagazine.com/journals/Power/NEI/September_2009/attachments/090827MSC-NuclearStatusReport2009-EN.pdf
or from http://www.bmu.de/english/nuclear_safety/downloads/doc/44832.php

Note that "NEI Magazine" is "Nuclear Engineering International Magazine", a respectable UK publication, not to be confused with the sleazy US lobbying and propaganda organization "Nuclear Energy Institute".

[jpak]

1. While wind and solar installations grow *exponentially* each year, stupid nuclear is in eclipse

some "Renaissance"

not

:D

[ProgressiveProfessor]

2. There are a large number of new starts for nuclear world wide

Its clearly not over yet

[jpak]

3. but reactor retirements are greater than new commissionings

and most reactors world-wide are quite old and will be put out to pasture faster than new ones will come on-line...

[Statistical]

4. Not true. Currently 56 GW under construction.

Over next 5 years that is about 11GW annually of new capacity coming online which far eclipses the decommissioning rate.

For example in 2010 the following projects are expected to go critical:


2010 India, NPCIL Kaiga 4 PHWR 202
2010 India, NPCIL Rawatbhata 6 PHWR 202
2010 Iran, AEOI Bushehr 1 PWR 950
2010 Russia, Energoatom Rostov 2 PWR 950
2010 India, NPCIL Kudankulam 1 PWR 950
2010 Canada, Bruce Power Bruce A1 PHWR 769
2010 Canada, Bruce Power Bruce A2 PHWR 769
2010 Korea, KHNP Shin Kori 1 PWR 1000
2010 China, CGNPC Lingao II-2 PWR 1080
2010 Argentina, CNEA Atucha 2 PHWR 692
2010 Russia, Energoatom Volgondonsk 2 PWR-VVER 950 (connected to grid march 18th)
2010 India, NPCIL Rajasthan 6 PHWR 202 (connected to grid march 28th)

Once could assume that while existing reactors under construction would be completed do new ones will be started but that isn't true either:
# Construction initiation (2010):
* Ningde 3 (1000 MW(e), PWR, China) - construction officially started on 8 January
* Taishan 2 (1700 MW(e), PWR-EPR, China) - construction officially started on 15 April
* Leningrad 2-2 (1085 MW(e), PWR-VVER, Russia) - construction officially started on 15 April
* Changjiang 1 (1000 MW(e), PWR, China) - construction officially started on 25 April

We are less than half way through the year and already 4.9GW of construction has started. China alone has another 4 GW of construction starts planned for this year.

So the construction queue is actually getting larger. 56GW under construction. 7GW will be completed in 2010 however another 8.9GW of construction will start.


If we want to look further out there are currently 148 reactors with a total of 162GW of capacity in planning. That far exceeds the amount of capacity going offline in next decade.

[jpak]

5. Umm - new commissions are outstripping retirements and that is why nuclear is declining?

"expected"

:rofl:

[Statistical]

6. Constructions starts are ramping up.

Given that it takes 5 years for reactor to be completed the new capacity in 2009 is based on contruction starts in 2004 and 2010 is based on 2005.

http://www.iaea.org/programmes/a2/

construction starts
2002 - 0 MW
2003 - 0 MW
2004 - 1200 MW
2005 - 1900 MW
2006 - 3180 MW
2006 - 3320 MW
2007 - 8685 MW
2008 - 10470 MW
2009 - 12995 MW

So it shouldn't be hard to figure out why capacity declined from 2006-2009 given that 5 years prior 2001 to 2003 there was no construction starts thus no replacement capacity in the queue.
However looking forward to say 2012 all the construction starts up to 2007 (17GW) will be 5+ years old.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out capacity is going to grow.

[kristopher]

7. .

[Statistical]

8. as of 2007.

[kristopher]

9. Good thing you aren't a rocket scientist...

[Statistical]

10. 2007 is not 2010.

Relative to 2007 China is way ahead of their nuclear rollout.

In 2006 their goal was 40 GWe by 2020. Today it is 70 GWe by 2020 and 200 GWe by 2030.

China was only scheduled to break ground on 3 reactors in 2010 based on their old timeline. They have broken ground on 4 so far this year and like start construction on a total of 8.

[kristopher]

11. .

ETA: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x246050

[joshcryer]

17. They know that capacity is going to grow.

Claiming "peak nuclear power" is an outright lie.

[FBaggins]

25. It's also an insult to Hubbert.

He included predictions for nuclear energy in the future... And there was no "peak" anywhere in the next many decades.

To look at any point on a graph where the slope turns negative and see a "peak" is just laughably ignorant.
just

[Statistical]

26. Lastly Hubbert work was on physical limitations.

Lets say nuclear power does "peak" at some point it won't be because of an inability to build more it simply will be because other cheaper alternatives (coal) exist.

Hubbert projections weren't a "peak" based on political will or alternatives. He didn't predict a peak because alternatives to oil would be developed his peak was based on the finite amount of oil that is recoverable. There is no such peak in uranium/thorium in the next couple thousand years.

[bananas]

30. "What M. King Hubbert might say today"

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/41892

Published Mar 24 2008 by ASPO-USA, Archived Mar 24 2008
What M. King Hubbert might say today
by Steve Andrews

Twenty years ago this month, I interviewed Marion King Hubbert at his home in Chevy Chase, Maryland. Hubbert was a brilliant and opinionated man. If he were alive, he would no doubt be fascinated by the quadrupling in oil prices and the increasingly vigorous discussion of peak oil. In this column, I’ll take my best shot at summarizing what Hubbert might have to say today about recent developments in the oil industry. His remarks from that old interview are in italics.

<snip>

3. The Solar and Efficiency Pathway:

One of Hubbert’s famous presentations, delivered 52 years ago to an audience of his peers, was called “Nuclear Energy and the Fossil Fuels.” At the time, he anticipated that nuclear energy would step in to substitute for future declining petroleum production. Later, he saw too many problems with nuclear and started promoting solar energy instead.

‘Were we a rational society, a virtue of which we have rarely been accused, we would do so and so…’ Hubbert suggested. He believed we should husband our dwindling supplies of oil and gas—supplemented by imports as long as they are available—and institute a program comparable to that in the nuclear industry of the 1940s, 50s and 60s, for the conversion to solar energy. He understood that time was a precious and fleeting resource: We still have great flexibility but our maneuverability will diminish with time.”

The biggest source of energy on this earth, now or ever, is solar. I used to think it was so diffuse as to be impractical. But I’ve changed my mind. It’s not impractical…This technology exists right now. So if we just convert the technology and research and facilities of the oil and gas industries, the chemical industry and the electrical power industry—we could do it tomorrow. All we’ve got to do is throw our weight into it.

<snip>

[bananas]

31. "The Seminal Hubbert article: Leading Edge Magazine, February 1983"

http://www.mkinghubbert.com/resources/press/leadingedge

The Seminal Hubbert article: Leading Edge Magazine, February 1983

<snip>

The key to making this cultural alteration is to come up with a limitless supply of cheap energy. Hubbert feels the answer is obvious - solar power - and he does not feel more technological breakthroughs are needed before it can be made universally available. His faith is not that of a kneejerk trendy but that of a doubter who did much studying before his conversion.

"Fifteen years ago I thought solar power was impractical because I thought nuclear power was the answer. But I spent some time on an advisory committee on waste disposal to the Atomic Energy Commission. After that, I began to be very, very skeptical because of the hazards. That's when I began to study solar power. I'm convinced we have the technology to handle it right now. We could make the transition in a matter of decades if we begin now.

"Solar power is limited by astronomic time but not in a human time frame. It's been there for billions of years and it will be going on for billions of years after we're gone. It also has another great advantage over conventional sources - once the system is in place it is permanent. All that's required to keep it going is routine maintenance."

<snip>

[bananas]

35. Peak uranium was prophesied by M. King Hubbert in the Holy Scriptures

Figure 27 on page 31 - predicted to happen right about now: http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/1956/1956.pdf

[FBaggins]

36. A piece of friendly advice

You would look less foolish if you read what you were citing (and took the time to understand it) before you used it.

That is NOT the peak for uranium.

Care to try again? Hint... generating capacity continues to grow (until in his then-estimation it capped out at 100% of power needs) for decades after that "peak". Hint #2... check out figure 30.

[bananas]

45. Wrong - figure 27 clearly shows a peak in uranium production..

Hubbert assumed breeder reactors would generate an endless supply of fuel from that. A number of countries have already reached peak uranium - the reason India wanted Bush's nukes-for-mangoes deal was because they already reached peak uranium, they were running their reactors at half capacity because they didn't have sufficient fuel. Globally, uranium production peaked around 1980, for above-ground reasons: it was realized that nuclear energy was too expensive, dirty, and dangerous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium

Peak uranium is the point in time that the maximum global uranium production rate is reached. After that peak, the rate of production enters a terminal decline. While uranium is used in nuclear weapons, its primary use is for energy generation via nuclear fission of uranium-235 isotope in a nuclear power reactor.<1> Uranium is a finite resource, and therefore considered non-renewable.<1><2>

M. King Hubbert created his peak theory in 1956 for a variety of finite resources such as coal, oil, and natural gas.<3> He and others since have argued that if the nuclear fuel cycle can be closed, uranium could become equivalent to other renewables.<4> Breeding and nuclear reprocessing potentially would allow the extraction of the largest amount of energy from natural uranium. However, only a small amount of uranium is being bred into plutonium and only a small amount of fissile uranium and plutonium is being recovered from nuclear waste worldwide. Furthermore, the technologies to completely eliminate the waste in the nuclear fuel cycle do not yet exist.<5> Since the nuclear fuel cycle is effectively not closed, Hubbert peak theory applies. The rate of discovery and the rate of production which initially increase must reach a maximum and decline. The rate at which uranium can be bred and the rate at which fuel can be reprocessed is not enough to meet the growing gap between the rate that uranium can be mined and the demand for uranium.

Since the nuclear fuel cycle is effectively not closed, Hubbert peak theory applies.

Pessimistic predictions of future high-grade uranium production operate on the thesis that either the peak has already occurred in the 1980s or that a second peak may occur sometime around 2035.

<snip>

Many countries have hit peak uranium and are not able to supply their own uranium demands any longer and have to import uranium from other countries or abandon nuclear power. Thirteen countries have hit peak and exhausted their uranium resources.<10><11>

<snip>

Peak uranium for individual nations

Eleven countries, Germany, the Czech Republic, France, DR Congo, Gabon, Bulgaria, Tajikistan, Hungary, Romania, Spain, Portugal and Argentina, have already peaked their uranium production and exhausted their uranium resources and must rely on imports for their nuclear programs or abandon them.<10><11> Other countries have reached their peak production of Uranium and are currently on a decline.

* Germany—Between 1946 and 1990, Wismut, the former East German uranium mining company, produced a total of around 220 kilotonnes (490×10^6 lb) of uranium. During its peak, production exceeded 7 kilotonnes (15×10^6 lb) per year. In 1990, uranium mining was discontinued as a consequence of the German unification.<10> The company could not compete on the world market. The production cost of its uranium was three times the world price.<102>

* India—India, having already hit its production peak, is finding itself in making a tough choice between using its modest and dwindling uranium resources as a source to keep its weapons programs rolling or it can use them to produce electricity.<103> Since India has abundant thorium reserves, it is switching to nuclear reactors powered by the thorium fuel cycle.

* 'Sweden - 1969—Sweden started uranium production in 1965 but was never profitable. They stopped mining uranium in 1969.<104> Sweden then embarked on a massive project based on American light water reactors. Nowadays, Sweden imports its uranium mostly from Canada, Australia and the former Soviet Union.

* UK - 1981The U.K.'s uranium production peaked in 1981 and the supply is running out. Yet the UK still plans to build more nuclear power plants.<42>

* France - 1988—In France uranium production attained a peak of 3,394 tonnes (7.48×10^6 lb) in 1988. At the time, this was enough for France to meet the half of its reactor demand from domestic sources.<105> By 1997, production was 1/5 of the 1991 levels. France markedly reduced its market share since 1997.<106> In 2002, France ran out of uranium.<101>

* U.S. - 1980—The United States was the world's leading producer of uranium from 1953 until 1980, when annual US production peaked at 16,810 tonnes (37.1×10^6 lb) (U3O8) according to the OECD redbook.<107> According to the CRB yearbook, US production the peak was at 19,822 tonnes (43.70×10^6 lb).<108> The U.S. production hit another maximum in 1996 at 6.3 million pounds (2.9 kt) of uranium oxide (U3O8), then dipped in production for a few years.<109> Between 2003 and 2007, there has been a 125% increase in production as demand for uranium has increased. However, as of 2008, production levels have not come back to 1980 levels.

Uranium mining production in the United States<110> Year 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
U3O8 (Mil lb) 3.1 3.4 6.0 6.3 5.6 4.7 4.6 4.0 2.6 2.3 2.0 2.3 2.7 4.1 4.5
U3O8 (tonnes) 1,410 1,540 2,700 2,860 2,540 2,130 2,090 1,800 1,180 1,040 910 1,040 1,220 1,860 2,040

Uranium mining declined with the last open pit mine shutting down in 1992 (Shirley Basin, Wyoming). United States production occurred in the following states (in descending order): New Mexico, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Texas, Arizona, Florida, Washington, and South Dakota. The collapse of uranium prices caused all conventional mining to cease by 1992. "In-situ" recovery or ISR has continued primarily in Wyoming and adjacent Nebraska as well has recently restarted in Texas.

* Canada 1959, 2001?—The first phase of Canadian uranium production peaked at more than 12 kilotonnes (26×10^6 lb) in 1959.<111> The 1970s saw renewed interest in exploration and resulted in major discoveries in northern Saskatchewan's Athabasca Basin. Production peaked its uranium production a second time at 12,522 tonnes (27.61×10^6 lb) in 2001. Experts believe that it will take more than ten years to open new mines.<112>

[FBaggins]

47. Nope... it shows a GRAPHICAL "peak" in "Uranium For Inventory"

which has precisely zero to do with how much uranium is in the ground or mined on an annual basis.


The graph depicts his assumed scenario of a stable population and nuclear power ramping up to provide essentially all power needs... then plateauing NOT because of a "peak" in supply, but because you can't get above 100% of a fixed figure. The graphical peak you're looking at is how much uranium would be required annually to feed the inventory requirements of these new reactors. As the rate of new reactor construction declines, the amount of uranium necessary for the inventory of new reactors goes down. It goes to a figure close to zero NOT because uranium has run out (he expected it to last for many centuries), but because there were no more new reactors in that model.

An easy disproof of your errant assumption is found in figure 30. You can see that his presumed rate of consumption lasts for thousands of years. This wouldn't occur in an environment where uranium was no longer available for mining. Note that the graph still reflects and annual fuel burning rate that remains constant for centuries.

Hubbert assumed breeder reactors would generate an endless supply of fuel from that.

Which means that no more is needed, not that no more is obtainable at economically usable prices.

[bananas]

32. An insult to Hubbert? You are VERY misinformed.

Read the two articles I just posted above.
Hubbard was pro-solar anti-nuke.

I have found that many peak oilers are like religious fundies.
Religious fundies base there beliefs on ancient texts like the Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavid Gita, the Necromicon.
Peak oilers base there beliefs on an ancient text even though the author of that text later said the conclusion was wrong. Not the conclusion about peak oil, but the conclusion about nuclear energy.

He predicted that we could transition to solar energy in just a few decades, that nuclear energy wasn't needed and wasn't desirable because solar energy was much better. Obviously, that would mean nuclear energy would peak and decline.

[FBaggins]

33. Nope.

It shows that you're misinformed about what "peak" refers to. It's irrelevant whether he thought nuclear was an ideal solution or not, the question is whether or not the use of the term "peak" in relation to this source of energy was properly used above.

It wasn't.

You can reasonably (though incorrectly) say "I think that future nuclear power development will not keep up with retiring production"... but you can't reasonably call it "peak nuclear power".

[joshcryer]

18. I wish China was more serious about cutting emissions, though.

In the time that they build 200 nuclear plants they will have built more than a thousand new coal plants.

[Nederland]

12. Hey all you anti-nukes

Want to put your money where your mouth is?

I'll bet you $100 that four years from now 2007 will not prove to be nuclear power's "peak" output.

We will of course have to agree to details about terms, sources, etc.

And in case you don't trust me, just ask GliderGuider if I pay up when I lose... :)

[bananas]

13. It was 2006 - nice try!

[Nederland]

15. Ok then, 2006

I'll take the bet either way.

[joshcryer]

19. Sucker bet.

[Nederland]

41. *Crickets*

I guess the anti-nukes aren't as stupid as some think they are...

[bananas]

43. I didn't take your proposal seriously

I thought you were joking - first, you got the year wrong, second, I presumed you looked at the two charts on graphs 7 and 8 on page 18 of the 2009 report in the OP by Mycle Schneider et al which show a another peak around 2012. Peak oilers might call it an undulating plateau. So your proposed bet wouldn't prove anything.
I'm going to be busy and may not be responding much (if at all) for a while.

[Statistical]

44. Pretty funny it only took you 3 days to disprove your own claim.

So now peak uranium will be in 2012 not 2006. :rofl:

Then in 2012 it will be 2014 and in 2014 we promise it will be 2020 and then in 2020 it will be because the reactors didn't shutdown at 40 years (like pro-nuclear energy people predicted buck in 2010) but if they had it would have peaked.

[bananas]

46. Nope - there was a peak in 2006 - that's a fact.

[FBaggins]

48. Only to the extent that there was a peak in 1996 and 2002 as well.

Which is to say... not at all.

[Statistical]

49. What an utterly weak backtrack.

There was "peak wind" in 1999, 2001, 2003, and 2005 also. 2009 might also be a peak way (2010 could be below 2009 due to economy).

So are you going to proclaim wind is dead because of "peak wind"? :rofl:

Generally speaking when someone makes a claim of peak resource (any resources) it is to say that the resource has hit highest production (of all time) and then will enter terminal decline. Peak oil wouldn't be much of a problem if we hit a new peak in 2012 and then another one in 2020 and then another one in 2046. The problem that peak oil (or any real peak) will create is that it will never reach that level of production again.

Clearly at a minimum the claim of peak uranium in 2006 is false. Maybe 2012 is peak uranium but even that is doubtful. Still you don't think it is even slightly funny that you debunked your own false claim. :rofl:

[bananas]

50. Some history

"peak oilers" have been doing that for decades - every time there's a drop in production, they say, "see! we've reached peak oil! civilization is about to collapse! doom! doom! doom!"

The arguments against "peak oil" are the same as the arguments agains "peak uranium" - there's lots of deep-sea oil in the gulf of mexico, there's lots of uranium in seawater, we can make oil from coal, we can reprocess spent fuel, etc.

The problem has never really been "peak oil" - the problem is that there's too much oil and coal, it's wrecking the environment. That's why environmentalists have been working to stop new coal plants and to shut down old ones.

[bananas]

51. Blasphemy!

Bananas is using "peak" in a sacriligious way!
He is insulting Hubbert!
He's committing blasphemy!
Lies! Lies! It's all lies!
Lord God Uranium is omnipresent and infinitely powerful!
Now we must perform our ablutions as we bow down and worship Uranus while reading from the Book of Saint Hubbert!
:rofl:
You wrote:
"Clearly at a minimum the claim of peak uranium in 2006 is false. Maybe 2012 is peak uranium but even that is doubtful. Still you don't think it is even slightly"
Nobody said peak uranium was in 2006. Peak uranium was around 1980. Peak nuclear energy was in 2006, and is now in a "undulating plateau". Try to keep up.

[bananas]

52. Your chart is new wind, not total wind - that's a wrong comparison

Even though wind additions varied up and down by year, the total power generated by wind increased every year. So your chart doesn't show "peak wind energy", it shows "peak wind additions". We have not reached "peak wind energy".
That's a wrong comparison to what's happening with nuclear, where old reactors will be taken out of service, decreasing the total power generated by nuclear.
My claims have not been debunked.

[FBaggins]

53. Why?

I mean... yeah... it would be... except that you referenced a graph that also showed a "peak" additions and not a peak in nuclear energy (let alone a Hubert supply peak in uranium).

[joshcryer]

69. Yes, I don't think the OP knows what peak means.

[joshcryer]

14. Do you expect this trend to continue?

[joshcryer]

16. No answer?

Perhaps the claim of "peak nuclear power" was a lie? Maybe?

[bananas]

21. Or maybe I'm drinking "Blueberry Beer" on a Saturday night

it says so on the label ... tastes good to me ...

[joshcryer]

23. No answer.

Probably because you know that "peak nuclear has occurred" is a lie.

[kristopher]

20. .

http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/topics/dokbin/206/[e-mail]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=246050&mesg_id=246050

[joshcryer]

22. That doesn't answer the question. Yaknow, denialists chose short term trends over long term...

...too.

[FBaggins]

24. Lol!

Note that "NEI Magazine" is "Nuclear Engineering International Magazine", a respectable UK publication

You would really try to spin this as their opinion?

They're printing a claim by an anti-nuclear group. That's not the same thing as agreeing with them.

But since you've now accepted their opinion as authoritative on the subject... let's take a look at it.

http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2054940

[Statistical]

27. This quote is interesting.

So why would owner/operators shut them down after 40 years, even though large numbers of reactors will reach this age over the next 20 years, following the boom in reactor construction in the 1970s and 1980s? Safety could be one good reason, but the report produces no evidence that 40-year-old reactors are intrinsically less safe than younger ones (indeed, both the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island accidents happened at reactors less than five years old). What about operating licenses? This is country-specific, but regulators have generally shown their willingness to allow extended operation of reactors provided they judge them to be safe. In the United States, over half of the existing 104 reactors have received license extensions of 20 years beyond the initial 40 and it is generally expected that most, if not all, of the remainder will do so when they need to. There is no reason to believe that this will not happen elsewhere – at least where large light water reactors (LWRs) are in operation. On the other hand, other types, such as the UK’s gas-cooled reactors and Russia’s RBMKs, may require large sums of money to be spent on them to keep them operating economically and/or safely.

Virtually every anti-nuke analysis of nuclear power indicates reactors will be shutdown at 40 years. This makes little sense. Some reactors (poor operating records, obsolete designs, expensive retrofits required) may indeed shutdown however the majority of LWR will not. A nuclear utility that has obtained 20 year extension is stting on a gold mine.

Type hypothetical reactor in the US 1 GW @ 92% capacity factor. In the 20 year extension period the plant will produce 161 TWh total energy. At $0.06 per kWh wholesale that is $9.7 billion in revenue. Now revenue isn't profit however construction & financing are the largest source of expense for nuclear reactor and they are long since paid off before the start of 20 year extension. O&M for US nuclear fleet runs 1.2 cents per kWh. Fuel costs @$70 uranium run another 0.4. Thus the ongoing cost for reactor is ~ 1.6 cents per kWh. Gross profit margin over the 20 year extension is something like $6.8 billion.

So why would all nuclear reactors w/ 20 year license extension shutdown @ 40 years? The reality is they won't. Some will but not all and that will push back a lot of decommissionings 20 years.

What is also interesting to consider is kris latest spam graph (5 posts in this thead alone) considers all German reactors shut down at 32 years. Germany is already considering lifetime extensions on their reactors. The only question is how long not if they will be extended. Some want to see only 8 year extension (to 40 years) and no new reactors, some are pushing for a 12 year extension and replacement reactors. A lots can happen in 3 years. The "phase out" was already in question prior to 2009 elections. Many see it is impossible for Germany to meet 2030 guidelines if reactors are phased out.

This took a dramatic turn towards pro-nuclear in 2009 elections:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP_Election_brings_hope_for_German_nuclear_2809091.html

It is almost a certainty that Germany reactors will run past the 32 year phase-out thus the graph is already in error. Those errors are compounded by underestimating the Chinese reactor movement.

[kristopher]

29. You mean the SURVIVING plants MIGHT be relicensed and extended.

Again it is a matter of which analysts have the track record of accuracy. The nuclear industry is not very good on that score...

Fifteen years ago, the Worldwatch Institute in Washington, WISE-Paris and Greenpeace International published the World Nuclear Industry Status Report 1992, this was then subsequently updated in 2004 by two of the original authors. The present publication provides an entirely updated and slightly modified version of the 2004 report.

The World Nuclear Status Report 1992 concluded:
“The nuclear power industry is being squeezed out of the global energy marketplace (...). Many of the
remaining plants under construction are nearing completion so that in the next few years worldwide
nuclear expansion will slow to a trickle. It now appears that in the year 2000 the world will have at
most 360,000 megawatts of nuclear capacity, only ten per cent above the current figure. This contrasts
with the 4,450,000 megawatts forecast for the year 2000 by the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) in 1974.”

In reality, the combined installed nuclear capacity of the 436 units operating in the world in the year 2000 was less than 352,000 MW or 352 GW. The analysis in the 1992 Report proved correct. At the end of 2007, there are 439 units operating in the world – that is one less than at the moment of the release of the 2004 version of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report and five units less than at the historical peak in 2002 – which total 371.7 GW of capacity. ...

- The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2007

“This authoritative analysis of the nuclear industry's sobering realities is a salutary antidote to irrational exuberance.”
- Amory B. Lovins,
Chairman and Chief Scientist,
Rocky Mountain Institute, USA

Note: This document can be downloaded for free from the website of
the Greens-EFA Group in the European Parliament at:
http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/topics/dokbin/206/[e-mail]

[Statistical]

37. Yeah we are talking about existing nuclear plants.

Those would be the ones up for decommissioning.

Given that after year 40 a plant has completely paid for cost of capital and O&M + fuel is < 2 cents per kWh it is utter stupidity to think any nuclear utility will shutdown any profitable plant.
I mean why would they. What does shutting the plant does at year 40 vs 60 save?

Decommissioning costs? Nope either way the plant needs to be decommissioned.
Capital Costs? Nope already paid for.
Retrofit Costs? Sure they exist but it is unlikely that a utility could build new generation for less than retrofit costs.

Now it is possible that a plant could be FORCED to shutdown at year 40 instead of 60 however the majority of US plants have already received extensions from 40 years to 60. The most trouble prone plants have been shutdown years ago.

So what remains are the highest capacity factor plants, the ones with proven track records and by year 40 will be completely paid off and will have regulatory approval for 20 more years. The idea that any utility is going to shut those plants down early is stupid.

[joshcryer]

38. No plants will get an extension.

Haven't you been reading the propaganda here? It has been copy-pasted dozens of times. Get a clue dude.

[Statistical]

39. Its hard to keep up with all the propoganda.

I guess the 47 reactor which ALREADY have extensions are just imaginary.

Like these two:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas_Nuclear_One
Licenses to operate through 2034/2038.

Or these two:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Anna_Nuclear_Generating_Station
Licenses to operate through 2038/2040.

The idea that every reactor in the US will shut down at 40 years isn't based on any facts but then again anti-nukker have never had a need for facts.

What I do wonder is what will they claim in 2016 when the first of the reactors are > 40 years old. Will they still stick with the tired 40 year "projection" when reactors are older than 40 years? :rofl:

Don't believe your lying uses looking at a reactor that is 41 years old this graph proves nuclear is already dead and that plant can't exist.

[kristopher]

40. So all those shut down with a mean age of 22 years were "stupid" decisions?

You are full of shit.

[FBaggins]

42. No... but what would really be "full of sh1t"

would be to claim that they were all shut down because that's just how long reactors last.

[kristopher]

57. You are the ones saying that because they haven't been shut down yet

...they will apparently last forever. Some might get extension, but clearly many will not. Given the trend lines, it is going to take a MAJOR alteration to make nuclear power a SIGNIFICANT part of the answer to our global energy problems. At between 2-4% of global energy consumed (allowing for extending most of the plants), nuclear isn't worth the trouble or the risks.

[Statistical]

58. By that logic with wind (0.3% of global energy consumption) CERTAINLY isn't worth the trouble.

Fossil fuels supply 90% of worlds energy so we should just stick with them for next century or so. Stick with what you know right?

[kristopher]

59. Typical nuclear industry hype based on poor reasoning.

The bulk of our response is going to be via renewables and energy efficiency. There is NO REASON to dilute our resources by chasing a bit player that has the huge environmental and social consequences of nuclear power.

The nuclear option: size of the challenges
• If world electricity demand grows 2%/year until 2050 and nuclear share of electricity supply is to rise from 1/6 to 1/3...

–nuclear capacity would have to grow from 350 GWe in 2000 to 1700 GWe in 2050;

– this means 1,700 reactors of 1,000 MWe each.
• If these were light-water reactors on the once-through fuel cycle...

–enrichment of their fuel will require ~250 million Separative Work Units (SWU);

–diversion of 0.1% of this enrichment to production of HEU from natural uranium would make ~20 gun-type or ~80 implosion-type bombs.

-If half the reactors were recycling their plutonium the associated flow of separated, directly weapon-usable plutonium would be 170,000 kg per year;
•diversion of 0.1% of this quantity would make ~30 implosion-type bombs.

- Spent-fuel production in the once-through case would be...
•34,000 tonnes/yr, a Yucca Mountain every two years.

Conclusion: Expanding nuclear enough to take a modest bite out of the climate problem is conceivable, but doing so will depend on greatly increased seriousness in addressing the waste-management & proliferation challenges.

Mitigation of Human-Caused Climate Change
John P. Holdren

[Statistical]

61. "Expanding nuclear enough to take a modest bite out of the climate problem is conceivable"

I agree 100%.

The issues presented are significant but not insurmountable.

[kristopher]

62. A lot of things are "conceivable"

That doesn't make those things a good choice. In this case, nuclear energy is a poor choice -a a third rate choice, in fact.

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]

64. All hail the Holy Jacobson and his littany of bogus numbers.

:rofl: Not that joke of a "study" again.

[joshcryer]

70. From a journal who has yet to prove itself and which spammed wikipedia...

...to get viewership.

[FBaggins]

68. Where did I say that?

Not that you've ever felt constrained by reality... Or able to survive without strawmen.

[kristopher]

54. So you are still celebrating Right Wing victories, eh?

Sorry but they just lost.

Merkel’s Election Loss Could Hamper Nuclear Reprieve
May 10, 2010, 12:23 PM EDT


By Nicholas Comfort and Brian Parkin

May 10 (Bloomberg) -- E.ON AG and RWE AG, Germany’s largest utilities, may not get to run their nuclear plants past scheduled shutdown dates after Chancellor Angela Merkel’s party lost control of parliament’s upper house in a state election.

The pro-nuclear leader of the Christian Democrats, punished by voters yesterday for her reversal on aid for Greece, may lose their hold on power in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany’s most populous state. The party’s worst result since World War II robs Merkel of a majority in the upper chamber in Berlin, limiting her ability to extend the lifespan of nuclear-power plants.

Germany, the European Union’s largest power user, plans to scrap a decade-old law that would have forced the shutdown of its nuclear reactors by about 2020. Merkel favors extended use of the plants to meet energy demand and cut output of gases blamed for global warming. An extension would bolster earnings for utilities with nuclear stations and forego spending on replacement plants.

“It’s suddenly looking much bleaker for her plans,” said Claudia Kemfert, chief energy analyst at the DIW economic Institute in Berlin. “The big question now is will Germany ramp up coal-fired power generation if the nuclear revival fails?”

Germany’s 17 nuclear reactors accounted for 23 percent of the country’s power generation last year, while coal and natural gas made up a combined 55 percent, according to the Berlin-based BDEW utility association. Running a nuclear plant emits less carbon dioxide than a coal- or natural-gas-fed unit....

They now they can continue their programmatic focus on building renewables if the wingers don't block them...

[FBaggins]

55. Amazing how you continually mistake nuclear as a "Right Wing" thing.

You'll probably prefer the article linked below, but you'll note that it was the RW victory in England that makes additional nuclear less likely.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0a23d2a8-5d23-11df-8373-00144feab49a.html

[kristopher]

56. Nuclear power is a Right Wing darling and has been for 50 years.

"Drill Baby Drill" and "More Nukes Now" are and have been the energy refrain of the right.

[Statistical]

60. LBJ and Obama are Republicans?

Largest expansion of nuclear power occurred during LBJ term and Obama has done more for nuclear renaissance than Bush ever did.

[kristopher]

63. The conclusion on Obama is premature...

ETA (for some reason text got dropped)

LBJ was 50 years ago when the failures of nuclear hadn't presented themselves. You can keep trying to put lipstick on this pig, but it isn't 2AM and the public isn't drunk.

[Statistical]

65. So if your conclusion on nuclear resinance before first Gen III+ reactor is built

but then again that never stopped you.

Even discounting Obama I guess that that means LBJ was a Republican.

[FBaggins]

67. Really? You think he's going to change his mind?

Especially now that his "let's drill offshore" plan appears dead in the water (pun intended)?

[FBaggins]

66. You going to leave out That radical RWer Jimmy Carter?

A man pretty well versed in nuclear physics.

[bananas]

28. LOL - I didn't say they were authoritative, I said they were respectable

They print hype and cheerleading like the article by Steve Kidd you linked to, but they also print reality-based articles like the one I linked to.

I wasn't trying to spin it as their opinion, I was trying to make sure that nobody confused the two organizations which share the same initials.

[FBaggins]

34. What an interesting spin

that is.. your take on "hype" vs. "reality based"

The dichotomy almost certainly exists... but to refer to the originally-cited article as the "reality based" one when the second documents a number of assumptions they rely on that are knowingly false... is funny (both "odd" and "ha ha".