you can waste money in all kinds on novel ways....nuclear is likely the way to go, just not with the current fuel cycle...fusion research is OK, just not at the multi-billion dollar scale...every dollar you throw away dreams is a dollar you don't have to spend on things that are more impactful on peoples lives...
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Nuclear Fusion ... Interested? ... This is it, this is the spot to explore ...
- Thread starter North_Sky
- Start date
Sorry, but nuclear is not the future... (maybe nuclear fusion 50 years in the future).
The newest nuclear power plant in Europe started operation in Olkiluoto, Finland, 13 years late, only to be shut down again shortly afterwards due to damage. Planned costs 3 billion €, real costs over 6 billion €. Time will tell how high the annual feed-in power will be.
The construction of the EPR reactor in Flamanville (France) is a total disaster (start of construction 2004, completion 2023 at the earliest, instead of 3 billion, costs of 12-20 billion €).
Likewise the construction in Great Britain (two units, around 30 billion €).
In China, the only two EPRs had to be taken off the grid due to design flaws.
Production costs of nuclear power is about 10-19ct/kWh. In Great Britain, a feed-in tariff of 10.5ct/kWh is guaranteed, but it is rumored that this no longer covers the costs for the French EDF (which builds the nuclear power plant).
We have not even taken into account the very limited supply of uranium, the disposal problems and security risks.
If the whole world were to rely on nuclear power plants, the global conventional reserves would be used up in just a few decades. At current consumption levels, it will last for a little more than a hundred years - but much sooner, the rise of uranium prices are likely to make the operation of the power plants unprofitable. Fuel reprocessing makes fuel rods even more expensive.
Alternative reactor types are hardly used (breeder reactors) or exist only on paper.
Production costs of wind energy are currently 4-8ct/kWh onshore and 7-12c/kWh offshore - with a strong downward trend in prime costs.
The total construction cost of a wind turbine is about 1.3-1.6 mill €/MW. Offshore turbines are more expensive, but produce more electricity due to more full load hours production time.
So you could build 2x1500MW onshore wind turbines cost about 4 billion €. So by the time you reach the 6-20 billion € to build one 1500MW reactor, you could build twice as many wind turbines and additional storage for low wind days and would be guaranteed to be done with construction in less than 20 years.
Large solar farms are even cheaper (3-5ct/kWh) - with a downward trend in prime costs.
German sources: https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/conten...e_Energien.pdf
http://windenergy.expert/was-kosten-windenergieanlagen/
https://windmonitor.iee.fraunhofer.d...titionskosten/
A little outdated graphic, but you get the meaning:
Source:
Nuclear power - Wikipedia
Last edited:
JSmith
Master Contributor
I agree, although I hope to see some commercial fusion operation in 10 - 20 years... but that may be rather optimistic I acknowledge.
In relation nuclear, the various types of breeder reactors do look interesting;
Fast Neutron Reactors | FBR - World Nuclear Association
Fast neutron reactors, fast reactors, fast breeder reactors, the potential role of fast reactors in more fuller utilising the world's uranium resource
JSmith
Eulipian
Member
Robert Bussard gave a Google talk in 2006 claiming to have found a way to reach a net energy gain using classical physics that did not employ the (failed) Russian Tokamak magnetic containment model
He claims to have run out of funding, but was going to sell to whomever had interest. Don't know if the physics or data were sound but enjoyed wasting an hour listening to someone debunking the Tokamak. I was taught that the neutrino radiation had to be absorbed by a containment vessel inside an outer vessel if they ever got the thing to work, and that the inner vessel would be radioactive and need constant replacement. Way outta my lane here so feel free to ignore.
Last edited:
JSmith
Master Contributor
DOE statement released today;
www.energy.gov
JSmith
DOE National Laboratory Makes History by Achieving Fusion Ignition
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) today announced the achievement of fusion ignition at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL)—a major scientific breakthrough decades in the making.
JSmith
Yep, China shows again and again what is currently possible with good organization and engineering.
Countries that have their own uranium deposits, have the necessary cooling water (especially in the summer) and can reduce the risk through the choice of location, energy from nuclear power can be a possibility - as a transitional solution.
One can always hope for a quick breakthrough
However, the current roadmaps look rather sobering. The EU is largely waiting for the results of the international research reactor ITER and will then proceed step by step:
China is accelerating its own research (CRAFT) in parallel with ITER, with a much more ambitious roadmap:
But even China does not expect to build the first commercial fusion reactor until 2050. It is hard to imagine that the roadmaps of Russia, India and the USA are any more ambitious - are they?
JSmith
Master Contributor
Hard to say... however there seems to be a fair bit of Government funding and commercial investment in fusion;
Feds commit $50 million to for-profit nuclear fusion companies, chasing the 'holy grail' of clean energy
The $50 million is help companies prepare detailed plans, but it is not enough money to fund the full construction of fusion power plants.
www.cnbc.com
Google and Chevron invest in nuclear fusion startup that's raised $1.2 billion
Google, Chevron and a Japanese investment company have invested in TAE Technologies, a nuclear fusion startup, which has raised $1.2 billion so far.
www.cnbc.com
JSmith
Final cost of the EPR in Olkiluoto is also around the same as current EDF estimates for the EPR in Flamanville:
source: https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/...chedule-Olkiluoto-3-in-Finland-Starts-Up.html
Of course that Olkiluoto data was based on the startup date in March 2022, which was superseded by the detected flaws that caused a subsequent shutdown.
Current estimate for a restart (as of 9 Dec 2022) is as follows:
source: https://www.tvo.fi/en/index/news/pr...lcontinueattheendofdecemberattheearliest.html
And of course EDF estimates for Flamanville also have to be taken with a grain of salt:
source: https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/art...r-des-comptes-ereinte-l-epr_6045707_3234.html
And then there's Hinkley Point C with 2 blocks currently estimated to cost GBP 25–26 billion (USD 30.91 bn to 32.12bn):
source: https://www.nuklearforum.ch/de/news/vertrag-fuer-hinkley-point-c-um-drei-jahre-verlaengert (Deepl-tanslation)
When I design that sort of thing, I only use the finest OFC copper core coax with silver foil ground wrapping, so the signals sound their bestwhat cables are they using?
The current fuel cycle used the plants is the main problem, the cost of a PWR or BWR is astronomical, but that doesn't mean there aren't better fission cycles, just that the big companies (GE/WEC/EDF) have too much invested in the current tech. Fusion research would be fine, but doing anything at any sort of scale at this point is throwing money away....
When I started a SWEC they ware finishing some studies associated with the Tokamak, it was a running joke...the line was fusion happens everywhere, just not in a torus, the Russians gave us torroidal containment to slow us down....
When I started a SWEC they ware finishing some studies associated with the Tokamak, it was a running joke...the line was fusion happens everywhere, just not in a torus, the Russians gave us torroidal containment to slow us down....
DOE statement released today;
DOE National Laboratory Makes History by Achieving Fusion Ignition
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) today announced the achievement of fusion ignition at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL)—a major scientific breakthrough decades in the making.
JSmith
We, in Japan, have similar "laser nuclear fusion" project at Osaka University;
https://www.ile.osaka-u.ac.jp/eng/
Marc v E
Major Contributor
Very good points.Sorry, but nuclear is not the future... (maybe nuclear fusion 50 years in the future).
The newest nuclear power plant in Europe started operation in Olkiluoto, Finland, 13 years late, only to be shut down again shortly afterwards due to damage. Planned costs 3 billion €, real costs over 6 billion €. Time will tell how high the annual feed-in power will be.
The construction of the EPR reactor in Flamanville (France) is a total disaster (start of construction 2004, completion 2023 at the earliest, instead of 3 billion, costs of 12-20 billion €).
Likewise the construction in Great Britain (two units, around 30 billion €).
In China, the only two EPRs had to be taken off the grid due to design flaws.
Production costs of nuclear power is about 10-19ct/kWh. In Great Britain, a feed-in tariff of 10.5ct/kWh is guaranteed, but it is rumored that this no longer covers the costs for the French EDF (which builds the nuclear power plant).
We have not even taken into account the very limited supply of uranium, the disposal problems and security risks.
If the whole world were to rely on nuclear power plants, the global conventional reserves would be used up in just a few decades. At current consumption levels, it will last for a little more than a hundred years - but much sooner, the rise of uranium prices are likely to make the operation of the power plants unprofitable. Fuel reprocessing makes fuel rods even more expensive.
Alternative reactor types are hardly used (breeder reactors) or exist only on paper.
Production costs of wind energy are currently 4-8ct/kWh onshore and 7-12c/kWh offshore - with a strong downward trend in prime costs.
The total construction cost of a wind turbine is about 1.3-1.6 mill €/MW. Offshore turbines are more expensive, but produce more electricity due to more full load hours production time.
So you could build 2x1500MW onshore wind turbines cost about 4 billion €. So by the time you reach the 6-20 billion € to build one 1500MW reactor, you could build twice as many wind turbines and additional storage for low wind days and would be guaranteed to be done with construction in less than 20 years.
Large solar farms are even cheaper (3-5ct/kWh) - with a downward trend in prime costs.
German sources: https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/conten...e_Energien.pdf
http://windenergy.expert/was-kosten-windenergieanlagen/
https://windmonitor.iee.fraunhofer.d...titionskosten/
A little outdated graphic, but you get the meaning:
View attachment 249845
Source:
Nuclear power - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
One of the things people easily ignore beside the costs and the time it will take to build an energy solution, is that the sun *is* a nuclear fusion reactor.
Why not harness that power first with solar, wind and batteries?
Then do research into fusion. Then there will be all the time and funding necessary. The other way around is just silly imo.
We can harvest that energy, but the problem with it is that it is too diffuse and intermittent to power any large industrial level endeavor. Batteries for storage are expensive and have limited lifespans. Lots of land is required for it, and all the interconnections to gather it are problematic. Then there are loses involved in converting the direct current from the panels into alternating current, although these loses can be quite small. I think that solar could work best if the panels are distributed on say, rooftops and used independently. It's best not to try to centralize power from a diffuse source such as sunlight & wind which is a result of sunlight, like that.
Marc v E
Major Contributor
You might be surprised, but what I gather from real life battery implementations, is that they had a ROI of 2.5 years for replacing a gas peaker plant in Australia.
Tony Seba, a former Stanford professor iirc, did calculations concerning the viability of solar or wind plus batteries for a lot of countries. In short his conclusions were that it is viable and cheaper. His words are that it is even cheaper to *build* a new solar farm plus batteries than to *run* an existing gas power plant iirc. Let alone coal or nuclear which is way more expensive.
The optimal amount of batteries needed to cover all situation was at max 4 days iirc. The optimum of storage vs windmills or solar is for each country slightly different but falls on the same curve.
As a layman it looks to me that every house will get its own battery. Especially given the intermittent nature of solar. And that solar is the only cheap and viable renewable source of energy for a consumer's house. We probably need some windmill generated grid energy in the winter time where I live. And most probably heat pumps for warming and cooling.
The thing with today's attitudes is that new things always can't be done. Till they are done. Same story with electric cars, then electric semis. In my country they tell us it can't be done to completely switch to electric, while Sweden has already done it for 75%. And Danmark deployed windmills from the 1970s onwards. The main obsticle we face is the time it takes government to approve projects. I'm not kidding when I say it takes them 7 years on average to get all the paperwork and meetings done to build 1 power distribution point from sea to shore. It takes about 12 months to build.
Last edited:
JSmith
Master Contributor
Helion nuclear fusion;
JSmith
JSmith
I've been in the power industry for 25 yrs, and during that whole time we have been doing studies on PV, solar thermal (parabolic trough, and power towers), geothermal, novel nuke cycles, supercritial CO2 cycles, the list goes on and and...all of them CAN be done, but none of them make any sense economically....the reason why you use coal, gas and oil is because they have a huge energy density, and you can dig them out of the ground cheaply....