Shuttered nuclear plant marks retirement milestone

Fuel Fix ^ | July 25, 2013 | Associated Press

[thackney]

Workers at the San Onofre nuclear power plant have finished removing highly radioactive fuel from its Unit 2 reactor...

Southern California Edison announced last month it was closing the twin-reactor plant between Los Angeles and San Diego. That ended a long and costly battle with environmentalists over whether it was safe to operate.

Removing the fuel clears the way for operator Edison to formally surrender the plant’s operating license to federal regulators.

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

Has always been my theory that if science and industry were able to field reactors like they wanted without enviro- wacko interference, plants would now be hundreds of times safer, dozens of times more powerful, and about the size of a small house. Still not ready for rich guy home use but we could see them coming.

[txnuke]

thanks for posting.

Just a little bit more info from someone who works in commercial nuclear power (me). A dying breed?

The Department of Energy was created in the 1970's for the purpose of ... wait for it.... yep "ending dependence on foreign oil". Heh.

Since then no one has taken up the cause or promoted nuclear power (at least not in a major way). We have an ignorant populace -- and not just about nuclear power-- unable to understand comparative risks of all kinds, and the accompanying return on investment.

Industries such as agriculture, chemical, drilling and refining, and non-nuclear power generation have HUGE accident, injury and fatality rates compared to nuclear power plants and occupational radiation exposure. (I have read that a worker receiving the average dose per year -- about 300 mrem, or several chest x-rays -- every year has about a 1 in 1000 chance of cancer related to their occupational exposure, contracted late in life. Airline pilots receive more dose and have about the same statistical risk.)

Yet the public is not informed about this.

A standardized pre-approved power plant design would go a long way toward making nuclear power safer and more affordable. But instead our regulatory agencies require plants meet the standards set forth in multiple volumes of the "Code of Federal Regulations". And multiple submittals of design and construction details are necessary over a period of years in order to determine if the standards are met and the approval eventually granted.

Carbon output? None.

Um... NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute) does a poor job of promotion, even though that is one of their stated goals. INPO (Institute of Nuclear Power Operators, the industry's self-regulation group) has the sharing of operating experience, improvements in standards, and auditing performance at the forefront of their mission. This does help promote nuclear power, mainly by preventing problems in advance. WANO (World association of nuclear operators) is a good group for similar reasons as INPO. And EPRI (Electrical Power ~?research?~ Institute) contributes technical standards and comparative studies. NRC does nothing to promote nuclear power. Corporations may try, but they are --of course-- treated as evil empires by the media. Misinformation abounds, with anti-nuclear groups spreading fear and intolerance even where (or maybe especially where) nearby nuclear power plants keep the local economy afloat.

Its a shame.

And President Obama promised a nuclear renaissance "as long as a safe means of storing and disposing of waste is possible." Then he axed Yucca Mountain, the government project that many nuclear power plant companies contributed to so that their fuel could be moved and stored long term. The US Government owes companies millions of dollars for defaulting on that agreement, but chances are it will never be repaid.

So, of course, without a safe place to send spent fuel, companies have to safely store it themselves, leading to increased costs of engineering, construction, and security, thus effectively paying for storage/disposal twice. And without Yucca Mountain, our president can say -- if he chooses to -- "there is no safe way to store spent fuel, so we cannot go forward with new plants".

New plants are in planning stages in Georgia and South Carolina. don't know how far along they are.

[henkster]

OK, I have to pester you with questions like a 5 year old.

Why all the applications in the 07-08 time frame?

What’s the projected time frame from application to getting electricity in my light bulbs?

How many existing nuclear plants are scheduled for closure during that period?

[thackney]

Why all the applications in the 07-08 time frame?

Before GWB administration was over??? What’s the projected time frame from application to getting electricity in my light bulbs?

If it ever happens, we will find out.

How many existing nuclear plants are scheduled for closure during that period?

Lots of them continue to extend their operations. I haven't seen a list of planned closures.

[thackney]

Some info on closings here, but remember the source:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/15/business/energy-environment/aging-nuclear-plants-are-closing-but-for-economic-reasons.html?_r=0

[wizr]

Think they’ll make great GIANT pizza ovens? Fun house echo chambers? Death defying shooting ranges?

[DoughtyOne]

Brought this table (below) over from: LINK


You were right.  If these figures are accurate, I was under a mis-impression that Petrol was used more broadly than it is.

It still remains to be seen what the nuclear produced energy will be replaced with, and looking at the most prevealent alternatives, it's not really a "greenie's" dream is it.

Natural gas would seem to be a viable alternative that they might not get too upset about.  You never know...

Thanks for the mention.


Units in table below are billion kilowatt hours.

Biomas	55.9
Coal	1994.0
Geothermal	14.9
Hydro	248.1
Natural Gas	876.9
Nuclear	806.0
Petrol Coke	14.2
Petrol Liquids	31.2
Solar P/V	0.8
Wind	52.0
Other Gases	11.6
Other	10.4

[thackney]

From your link:

I got motivated to build a small spreadsheet using tables 1.1 and 3 from the Energy Information Agency’s 2008 US Electric Power Monthly publication.

The more current data will show a continued trend for less petroleum liquid used (which still includes the near-tar residual oil)

Table ES1.A. Total Electric Power Industry Summary Statistics, 2013 and 2012
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_es1a

Table 1.1. Total Electric Power Industry Summary Statistics, 2011 and 2010
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_01_01.html

Petroleum like diesel is too expensive to use for Electrical Power Generation except when special conditions make the options even more costly (like a remote Alaskan Village).

Most of the growth in electrical power generation the last few years has come from Natural Gas.

[DoughtyOne]

I wondered if other sources might indicate an even larger decline. I thought they might, because I believe we did used to use more petroleum based plants.

Right now there’s a big 995 gigawatt plant in Bangor, Maine being sold.

[thackney]

A picture of the change in New England over the past decade:

http://bangordailynews.com/2013/05/04/business/proposed-sale-of-maines-largest-power-plant-a-sign-of-regions-changing-energy-market/

[thackney]

It is the largest power plant in the state in terms of capacity, but that doesn’t translate to outsized importance. In fact, the plant, which many consider an eyesore in Casco Bay, is just a big backup generator that only gets switched on during desperate times.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks. That was useful to understand the situation.

Petroleum really tanked.

[thackney]

Petroleum really tanked.

They are just catching up with the rest of the country,4 decades late...

[DoughtyOne]

I hadn’t realized that.

[DoughtyOne]

LOL, sounds like other things I know about Maine.