4 ms·

The follow-on question is why aren't these plants retrofitted to be secure? I'd somewhat naively expect that its simpler to upgrade an existing plant than permi

by lumost 6y ago

The follow-on question is why aren't these plants retrofitted to be secure? I'd somewhat naively expect that its simpler to upgrade an existing plant than permit a new plant in.a separate location.

antattack 6y ago
Duane Arnold plant is being replaced with solar panels and battery storage: https://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/business/duane-arnold-nuclear-plant-solar-farm-nextera-energy-palo-ia-20210318 https://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/business/duane-arnol...
- belorn 6y ago
  A 615-megawatt facility coupled with 60 megawatts seems a bit low on the storage side. The more common approach I have seen with solar panels is 75% capacity for about 3-4 hours running time. It should be quite clear that neither solution are even close to enough power to bridge the gap and require additional energy in the form of fossil fuels. It will be less fossil fuels than if the nuclear plant was exclusively replaced with fossil fuels, but it will be more fossil fuels than before and it will be adding to global warming in a time where the planet can't take more.
benchaney 6y ago
It’s possible that it would be more expensive to upgrade than to replace in many cases. While I support expanding nuclear power capabilities in general, a straightforward rule like “don’t decommission old plants as long as fossil fuels are still being used” seems dangerous and irresponsible.
sliken 6y ago
Each plant is unique, and not perfectly understood. Often the people that did understand it have forgotten, died, moved on, etc. Understanding, improving, testing, and certification of a plan to protect against the huge risks involved is expensive and often in practice timelines and budgets often go significantly over. There's numerous MUCH newer designs that: are much smaller, much easier to scale, absolutely identical, well understood, robust in the face of failure, and don't even need operators. Additionally since they are identical they get economies of scale and only need a finite number of experts on hand, not a group of them per site. You literally need a flat site, water, and electrical hookups. If you don't provide enough water for cooling they shut down. After their useful service life you put them back on a train car and ask for a replacement. Some of these projects are ready to deliver, but the early customers have been cancelling. Bill Gates funded a project, and there's several around.
- dundercoder 6y ago
  Couple that with outages being so expensive. Each day offline is millions in lost revenue.
- andrewlgood 6y ago
  To be clear, none of the new designs have been certified in the US by the NRC
andrewlgood 6y ago
The plants have been retrofitted to be secure/safe. The retrofits can cost $100+ million and do not make much sense if the power plants are losing money.

by lumost 6y ago

The follow-on question is why aren't these plants retrofitted to be secure? I'd somewhat naively expect that its simpler to upgrade an existing plant than permit a new plant in.a separate location.

antattack 6y ago

Duane Arnold plant is being replaced with solar panels and battery storage: https://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/business/duane-arnold-nuclear-plant-solar-farm-nextera-energy-palo-ia-20210318 https://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/business/duane-arnol...

belorn 6y ago
A 615-megawatt facility coupled with 60 megawatts seems a bit low on the storage side. The more common approach I have seen with solar panels is 75% capacity for about 3-4 hours running time. It should be quite clear that neither solution are even close to enough power to bridge the gap and require additional energy in the form of fossil fuels. It will be less fossil fuels than if the nuclear plant was exclusively replaced with fossil fuels, but it will be more fossil fuels than before and it will be adding to global warming in a time where the planet can't take more.

benchaney 6y ago

It’s possible that it would be more expensive to upgrade than to replace in many cases. While I support expanding nuclear power capabilities in general, a straightforward rule like “don’t decommission old plants as long as fossil fuels are still being used” seems dangerous and irresponsible.

sliken 6y ago

Each plant is unique, and not perfectly understood. Often the people that did understand it have forgotten, died, moved on, etc. Understanding, improving, testing, and certification of a plan to protect against the huge risks involved is expensive and often in practice timelines and budgets often go significantly over. There's numerous MUCH newer designs that: are much smaller, much easier to scale, absolutely identical, well understood, robust in the face of failure, and don't even need operators. Additionally since they are identical they get economies of scale and only need a finite number of experts on hand, not a group of them per site. You literally need a flat site, water, and electrical hookups. If you don't provide enough water for cooling they shut down. After their useful service life you put them back on a train car and ask for a replacement. Some of these projects are ready to deliver, but the early customers have been cancelling. Bill Gates funded a project, and there's several around.

dundercoder 6y ago
Couple that with outages being so expensive. Each day offline is millions in lost revenue.
andrewlgood 6y ago
To be clear, none of the new designs have been certified in the US by the NRC

andrewlgood 6y ago

The plants have been retrofitted to be secure/safe. The retrofits can cost $100+ million and do not make much sense if the power plants are losing money.