In Episode 96 of "The Energy Question" David Blackmon and Doug Robison, CEO of Natura Resources delve into the future of nuclear energy, exploring its potential to meet growing power demands while addressing climate concerns. They discuss the industry's challenges and opportunities, emphasizing the need for policy support and public perception shifts to drive its adoption.
I just watched this on YouTube and found it to be very interesting conversation. I absolutely agree that the demonization of coal and the rate of decommissioning of existing coal plants is a recipe for disaster. We urgently need new SC/USC coal power plants.
Regarding the discussion around nuclear - I have a few disagreements. I think it is a mistake - as the guest said - to "wait for new nuclear to prove itself." The NRC needs to abandon its rejectionist attitude toward nuclear. It needs to create the conditions that enable the construction of new conventional pressurized water reactors. We need this capacity right away - as the saying goes "yesterday." Furthermore the PWR is a proven technology with many decades of know how that has resulted in the very high capacity factors of the existing fleet. There is absolutely no guarantee that any of the new nuclear technologies will be able to match this performance once they come online. And it is very likely that it will take many years for them to achieve the critical mass of operational know-how to match the capacity factors that the current nuclear fleet enjoys.
So in conclusion, bring on a new fleet of PWRs in the short term, and in the meantime allow the the emerging technologies to mature.
I was once a strong proponent of nuclear power. I no longer am, because the cost for nuclear has exploded.
Latest estimate for completion of 3200 MW Hinkley Point Nuclear Power Plant in UK is 34 Billion British Pounds- $43 Billion in US dollars. That's over $13,000/kw. My rule of thumb for gas generation is ~$1,000/kw, and for coal, ~$2,000.
In an earlier stage of my career, I did financial analysis of power projects. Another rule of thumb is a power project needs to recover approximately 1/4 of its capital investment each year. The cost of capital (i.e. excluding fuel and O&M) is roughly 3.1₵/kwh for gas gen, 6.2₵/kwh for coal (if it can be built), and 41₵/kwh for nuclear.
Nuclear has a lot of appeal, because it's carbonless. Cost-wise, it's out there, way beyond wind and solar.
I worked for 20 years for a power company operating in TX and LA. Our nuclear power plant nearly broke the company. My boss and mentor used to say, we won all the nuclear battles, but lost the war. What he meant by that was, our antagonists would create a nuclear scare-story. We'd say, we can engineer a solution for that. And we did. One solution to each nuclear scare-story at a time, our project went from $700 million for 2x 1000 MW units to $4.3 billion for a single 1000 MW unit. We were saved from bankruptcy by being acquired by a bigger utility.
On the interview, I didn't hear any of the technical details. What is about the ACU nuclear facility that makes it ADVANCED? What is the expected output. And cost?
Not trying to troll here. Just trying to get the pertinent facts.
Bottom line for me, I didn't hear any numbers to help me change my opinion about nuclear.
I just watched this on YouTube and found it to be very interesting conversation. I absolutely agree that the demonization of coal and the rate of decommissioning of existing coal plants is a recipe for disaster. We urgently need new SC/USC coal power plants.
Regarding the discussion around nuclear - I have a few disagreements. I think it is a mistake - as the guest said - to "wait for new nuclear to prove itself." The NRC needs to abandon its rejectionist attitude toward nuclear. It needs to create the conditions that enable the construction of new conventional pressurized water reactors. We need this capacity right away - as the saying goes "yesterday." Furthermore the PWR is a proven technology with many decades of know how that has resulted in the very high capacity factors of the existing fleet. There is absolutely no guarantee that any of the new nuclear technologies will be able to match this performance once they come online. And it is very likely that it will take many years for them to achieve the critical mass of operational know-how to match the capacity factors that the current nuclear fleet enjoys.
So in conclusion, bring on a new fleet of PWRs in the short term, and in the meantime allow the the emerging technologies to mature.
This is a great discussion.
Let’s hope the permits can be granted without undue politician interference and blathering and grandstanding.
I am anxious to see how the scalability of this design works and how the construction plans can be optimized.
Natura has done some great work and it is not just academic paper printing but actual physical work!
I was once a strong proponent of nuclear power. I no longer am, because the cost for nuclear has exploded.
Latest estimate for completion of 3200 MW Hinkley Point Nuclear Power Plant in UK is 34 Billion British Pounds- $43 Billion in US dollars. That's over $13,000/kw. My rule of thumb for gas generation is ~$1,000/kw, and for coal, ~$2,000.
In an earlier stage of my career, I did financial analysis of power projects. Another rule of thumb is a power project needs to recover approximately 1/4 of its capital investment each year. The cost of capital (i.e. excluding fuel and O&M) is roughly 3.1₵/kwh for gas gen, 6.2₵/kwh for coal (if it can be built), and 41₵/kwh for nuclear.
Nuclear has a lot of appeal, because it's carbonless. Cost-wise, it's out there, way beyond wind and solar.
I worked for 20 years for a power company operating in TX and LA. Our nuclear power plant nearly broke the company. My boss and mentor used to say, we won all the nuclear battles, but lost the war. What he meant by that was, our antagonists would create a nuclear scare-story. We'd say, we can engineer a solution for that. And we did. One solution to each nuclear scare-story at a time, our project went from $700 million for 2x 1000 MW units to $4.3 billion for a single 1000 MW unit. We were saved from bankruptcy by being acquired by a bigger utility.
On the interview, I didn't hear any of the technical details. What is about the ACU nuclear facility that makes it ADVANCED? What is the expected output. And cost?
Not trying to troll here. Just trying to get the pertinent facts.
Bottom line for me, I didn't hear any numbers to help me change my opinion about nuclear.