The Emperor Has No Pressure Vessel...

[GliderGuider]

My position has always been that, regardless of safety considerations, nuclear power is too expensive to provide a long term solution. Today's economic climate has thrown that position into sharp relief.

The Catastrophic Economics of Nuclear Power

In a devastating pair of financial reports that might be called "The Emperor Has No Pressure Vessel," the New York Times has blazed new light on the catastrophic economics of atomic power.

The two Business Section specials cover the fiasco of new French construction at Okiluoto, Finland, and the virtual collapse of Atomic Energy of Canada. In a sane world they could comprise an epitaph for the "Peaceful Atom". But they come simultaneous with Republican demands for up to $700 billion or more in new reactor construction.

The Times's "In Finland, Nuclear Renaissance Runs Into Trouble" by James Kanter is a "cautionary tale" about the "most powerful reactor ever built" whose modular design "was supposed to make it faster and cheaper to build" as well as safer to operate.

But four years into a construction process that was scheduled to end about now, the plant's $4.2 billion price tag has soared by 50% or more. Areva, the French government's front group, won't predict when the reactor will open. Finnish utilities have stopped trying to guess.

The fiascos in Finland and Flamanville have thrown Areva into economic chaos now being mirrored at the Atomic Energy of Canada, Limited. Once touted as a global flagship, AECL sucked up 1.74 billion Canadian dollars in subsidies last year and has been a long-term money loser which the government has now announced it wants to sell.

AECL's natural uranium/heavy water design has flopped in the world market. "Design issues" with its installed plants require heavy maintenance. AECL's Chalk River research facility, which suffered a major accident in 1952 (in which former President Jimmy Carter served as a "jumper") needs 7 billion Canadian dollars for clean-up work. Its 51-year-old medical isotope facility recently popped a major leak that may close it forever.

The Paris-based energy expert Mycle Schneider reports that of 45 reactors being built worldwide, 22 are behind schedule and nine have no official ignition schedules.

The news about Chalk River is especially serious, since it supplied about half of the radioisotopes used around the world for medical diagnostic testing. A year and a half ago the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission shut the reactor down over safety concerns. That prompted the most egregious piece of political grandstanding in recent memory, as the Conservative government of "Little Stevie" Harper forced the reopening of the reactor and fired the president of the CNSC, Linda Keen. It looks as though the CNSC's concerns were well founded.

[madokie]

1. I think we're wasting precious time and money on beating this dead horse

I wish it wasn't true, I wish we could have an energy source like they would like us to believe nuclear would be. In the mean time we need to be concerned with the biggest bang for our bucks, both in money and time. I'm still at a loss that no one is talking and doing something about converting our coal burning plants to using a gasifier process. That alone cuts half the co2 out of the exhaust stream if nothing else at all is done. It would be relatively easy and cheap to do as the majority of the equipment can still be used as it is. I realize that would not be a permanent fix but it would help to buy us some time as we get other cleaner systems on line. Wind and solar can add a lot yet. Natural gas is better than burning coal directly, pretty much the same as using coal via a gasifier, we could build more of those to help buy time too.

[kristopher]

3. We are wasting precious time.

Would you mind presenting the details of what it is about coal gasification that you believe justify investment in it? As you say, for some reason it isn't being done. Perhaps if we look at the details we can understand why. The improvement in efficiency you point to is the same as that associated with natural gas - by using the exhaust heat for some purpose instead of just venting it, there are *potential* gains overall in the amount of useful energy that is derived from the coal input. However, coal doesn't need to be gasified to achieve either that type of gain in efficiency or the corresponding reduction in CO2 emissions. As far as I know the major advantages of gasification is that it allows flexibility in the feedstock (something I heartily approve of) and it is supposed to reduce both particulate emissions and NOX emissions.

I think the proper question to ask in order to answer you question of "why is it not more often used" is: "why is coal, in general, not more commonly used in a combined cycle system?" For some reason coal plants don't seem to lend themselves to the use of their exhaust as a heat source, while natural gas does. Perhaps it is the fact that, as you say, most coal plants are already in place while most new construction has been in natural gas. This has perhaps allowed the developers to factor in exhaust heat as a commodity in their siting decisions. Most coal plants are located in the remoter, less densely populated areas because there would have been less opposition to construction of such an industrial facility.

If that summary is correct, in order to achieve the efficiency advances with existing coal (gasified or not) thermal generation that have been realized with natural gas thermal generation we would have to move industries needing large amounts of heat or CO2 (algae production is a possible example) into close proximity with the coal plants.

[madokie]

4. Here's a couple links that will help in understanding the gasification process

We have two combined cycle natural gas power plants here and there is two manufacturing plants near, adjacent too and across the street, that uses a lot of heat, ductile iron foundry and a soy products plant and neither are using the waste heat from the combined cycle power plant so I'm not so sure that it is a requirement to have.
I hope this helps.



http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/gasification/index.html

Coal gasification offers one of the most versatile and clean ways to convert coal into electricity, hydrogen, and other valuable energy products.

Coal gasification electric power plants are now operating commercially in the United States and in other nations, and many experts predict that coal gasification will be at the heart of future generations of clean coal technology plants.

Rather than burning coal directly, gasification (a thermo-chemical process) breaks down coal - or virtually any carbon-based feedstock - into its basic chemical constituents. In a modern gasifier, coal is typically exposed to steam and carefully controlled amounts of air or oxygen under high temperatures and pressures. Under these conditions, molecules in coal break apart, initiating chemical reactions that typically produce a mixture of carbon monoxide, hydrogen and other gaseous compounds.

Gasification, in fact, may be one of the most flexible technologies to produce clean-burning hydrogen for tomorrow's automobiles and power-generating fuel cells. Hydrogen and other coal gases can also be used to fuel power-generating turbines, or as the chemical "building blocks" for a wide range of commercial products. <> Read more about hydrogen production.>

http://www.gasification.org/what_is_gasification/overview.aspx

What is Gasification?
Gasification is a flexible, reliable, and clean energy technology that can turn a variety of low-value feedstocks into high-value products, help reduce our dependence on foreign oil and natural gas, and can provide a clean alternative source of baseload electricity, fertilizers, fuels, and chemicals.

It is a manufacturing process that converts any material containing carbon—such as coal, petroleum coke (petcoke), or biomass—into synthesis gas (syngas). The syngas can be burned to produce electricity or further processed to manufacture chemicals, fertilizers, liquid fuels, substitute natural gas (SNG), or hydrogen. (See Global Syngas Output By Feedstock).

Gasification has been reliably used on a commercial scale worldwide for more than 50 years in the refining, fertilizer, and chemical industries, and for more than 35 years in the electric power industry.

[kristopher]

5. It depends on the efficiency you are shooting for.

The natural gas combined cycle plants achieve a very worthwhile increase in efficiency with the second cycle, but the big efficiency numbers you read about have only been possible by tapping the residual heat for another purpose.

I don't have enough information to understand the relationship between the businesses you are pointing to, but my first question would be what is the efficiency rating of the natgas CC plant? I'm guessing it is closer to 40% than it is to the 60% upper limit.

With the backing of the local power companies, the operator of a conventional coal plant in this area wanted to build an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle coal plant in response to a request for local power supply initiated by the state legislature. A wind farm developer also placed a bid based on an offshore wind farm, and another bid by a conventional developer was entered based on a CC natural gas plant.

These are the items by which the state legislature directed the bids be evaluated:

"2. In developing the IRP, DP&L may consider the economic and environmental value of:

(i) resources that utilize new or innovative baseload technologies (such as coal gasification);

(ii) resources that provide short- or long-term environmental benefits to the citizens of this State (such as renewable resources like wind and solar power);

(iii) facilities that have existing fuel and transmission infrastructure;

(iv) facilities that utilize existing brownfield or industrial sites;

(v) resources that promote fuel diversity;

(vi) resources or facilities that support or improve reliability; or

(vii) resources that encourage price stability.

The IRP must investigate all potential opportunities for a more diverse supply at the lowest reasonable cost."


The final judgment was that the offshore wind plant was the best choice. In my opinion the strongest reasons for the choice were carbon emissions, costs, and the experimental nature of the IGCC plant. It appeared to me from observing the debate that while gasification itself is an old technology (back to late 1800s) the claims that are being associated with the technology's ability to meet present day problems are largely unproved.
If you'd like to learn more http://depsc.delaware.gov/irp.shtml

Of course you are proposing something different; that existing power plants be retrofitted. So this information would only be tangentially related to that idea. Would you envision some sort of government mandate at either the state or federal level to get that done?

It is my opinion that if it is an attractive proposition as a way to reduce carbon levels, we might already be on track with the best legislation to get them to change over. The cap and trade bill will make reducing carbon emissions something the power producers take into account when calculating their bottom line. So if retrofitting is a good way to go, it will probably get done. At the very least, it will be looked at closely by those with the expertise and clout to make a good decision.

[Fledermaus]

2. I think all the present nuclear reactors will have a very important part to play.

They are an important CO2 mitigation asset that should be managed properly. I don't really care to see any more new ones. They are two expensive.