Hoover Podcast: The Future of Nuclear Power

 

Over at the Hoover Institution, we’ve recently launched a new essay series on the role that nuclear power can play in the future of American energy production.

In this special podcast to accompany that series, I sit down with William J. Madia, Chairman of the Board of Overseers and Vice President for the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory at Stanford University, and Regis Matzie, a consultant to the international nuclear industry and the former Senior Vice President and Chief Technology Officer of Westinghouse Electric Company, to talk specifically about one piece of technology that they believe could change the way the U.S. does nuclear: small modular reactors (SMRs). Listen in below to hear how SMRs could potentially address energy, environmental, and national security concerns in a groundbreaking fashion:

Published in Domestic Policy, Podcasts
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 10 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. PHCheese Inactive
    PHCheese
    @PHCheese

    So let me get this straight. A large plant at a thousand mega-watt is 10 billion dollars and a small plant that produces 200 mega-watt costs a third of that. How is that cost effect?

    • #1
  2. captainpower Inactive
    captainpower
    @captainpower

    PHCheese:So let me get this straight. A large plant at a thousand mega-watt is 10 billion dollars and a small plant that produces 200 mega-watt costs a third of that. How is that cost effect?

    I haven’t listened to it yet, but that scenario could be explained by efficiencies of scale, or by regulatory burden that needs to be overcome as a startup cost.

    efficiencies of scale: It’s pretty expensive per-item to make a custom car. When you start mass producing it the per-car cost cost comes down

    theoretical regulatory burden: it costs (made up number) 1 billion to make a power plant. So a small power plant costs 1 billion + actual costs. A large power plant costs 1 billion + actual costs. So if actual costs for small are 500 million, and for large are 1 billion, then small costs 1.5 billion and large costs 2 billion.

    These are just wild speculation from someone with no particular industry knowledge. I will give the podcast a listen when I get a chance.

    • #2
  3. PHCheese Inactive
    PHCheese
    @PHCheese

    Capt., I am just using their numbers. Five 200 megawatts plant that produces a thousand megawatts would cost 16.6 billion.One thousand megawatt plant would cost 10 billion.

    • #3
  4. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    Does anybody in this podcast at least mention Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors?

    If not, then I ain’t interested.

    ;-)

    • #4
  5. jmelvin Member
    jmelvin
    @jmelvin

    I have not yet listened to the podcast, but there are advantages to SMRs (small modular reactors) that are not easily overcome for large reactors.  Two significant issues utilities must overcome when planning for a new power plant are existing grid capabilities and replacement power costs.

    There are a fair number of nuclear power plants in the USA that produce 1000 MWe or more, with the most being produced at the 3 Palo Verde units in Arizona, which provide about 1330 MWe each (total of nearly 4000 MWe, or 4GWe).  This is a huge amount of power for a single portion of the grid.  Although the modern Westinghouse AP1000 being built in a few US locations will provide around 1100 MWe, many of the other advanced simplified plants such as the AREVA EPR, GE ESBWR, and some of the Mitsubishi units provide between 1400 MWe and 1700 MWe per unit.  Although it may make sense to have some of these large units in various places throughout the US where the existing grid could support such power supply, there are areas where significant upgrades to the grid would have to occur to facilitate even one, let alone multiples of these units in one area.  As a result, the unit price is just one aspect of the building and operational cost.

    Replacement power costs are another significant aspect utilities must consider.  Electrical power forecasters work with consumers, weather bureaus, and power producers to estimate the amount of electrical power that will need to be produced in upcoming times.  In addition to the expected required amount of power, there are additional requirements for ready reserve power that must be immediately available to cover the unexpected loss of the blend of power producing units so that the electrical power grid remains stable.  Utilities bid in a market to provide a portion of the electrical power demand in different areas and they are then chosen to provide a specific amount of electrical power for a known window of time at a known price.  If a utility has committed to provide power for a week in December in Minnesota, but they know one of their plants will be out of commission for planned maintenance the utility will sometimes purchase power from another utility in advance to cover their deficiency at a negotiated planned price.  However, if that same plant in Minnesota unexpectedly goes offline when it should be operating, the replacement power costs will be significantly higher due to the unplanned nature of the demand, especially in times of peak demand.  As a result, a utility that has committed to provide 3000 MWe of power for that week that unexpectedly loses a 1500 MWe plant is going to have to pay for 1500 MWe of high priced power to cover that one unit, but the utility that can supply that same amount of power from multiple small units may only have to cover 150-300 MWe if one of the small plants goes offline unexpectedly.

    • #5
  6. jmelvin Member
    jmelvin
    @jmelvin

    As a result, it may be useful for electrical utilities to build a blend of SMRs and large reactors to address their individual situations.  With this further information, one should be able to see why it may be more advantageous to pay more up front for more small units to provide a specific amount of power than for a utility to pay a lesser price up front for that same amount of power capability in fewer large units.

    *This discussion of course ignores the various other siting considerations associated with plants, such as requirements for water supply, operating staff, etc.

    • #6
  7. user_545015 Inactive
    user_545015
    @CharlesShunk

    Right now, cost-per-kWh in nuclear is dominated by the cost of financing the initial construction of the plant.  Something like 60-70 percent of the price of electricity generated by nuclear goes just to paying back the interest on the original loan.

    Borrowing less up front so that the plant has a quicker ROI period could make the difference between an economically viable plant and a plant that can never be reasonably financed.

    • #7
  8. user_545015 Inactive
    user_545015
    @CharlesShunk

    By the way, (related to SMRs) I really like the sound of this idea:

    http://www.ecnmag.com/news/2015/06/researchers-designing-nuclear-power-plant-will-float-eight-or-more-miles-out-sea

    Getting nuclear to be viable now is all about getting the cost of constructing the plants down.  The floating-nuke concept looks like it provides some benefits in that direction over and above the basic SMR concept.

    • #8
  9. Larry3435 Inactive
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    Yesterday (on “take out the trash” Friday) Obama announced that he was declaring a worthless piece of desert in Nevada to be a national monument.  The sole purpose of this move was to block a railway that was under consideration, which would have transported nuclear waste to the proposed storage facility at Yucca Mountain.  This was, of course, a favor to Harry Reid, who has made fear-mongering about the Yucca Mountain site a centerpiece of every campaign he has run.

    Thus, instead of being safely buried under a million tons of mountain, America’s nuclear waste will continue to be stored in “temporary” facilities around the country.  Poorly constructed and poorly defended warehouses – many of them in urban settings.

    Just thought you might want to know…

    • #9
  10. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Smaller plants can be located nearer to the consumers, thus reducing line losses.  Being modular also means modules could be added as the area grows, or maintained the same size if it doesn’t.

    Standardization also helps as well as economy of scale – lot’s of small plants does both, not to mention the reduction in training costs – only one plant design to learn, with minor differences due to location.

    • #10
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.