Random Thoughts

Present value cost of decommissioning Vogtle 3 and 4

"BillyJoe" on the Neurologica blog asked about the decommissioning cost of Vogtle 3 and 4...if they ever even produce electricity, which is not a sure thing. I responded to him twice on the Neurologica blog, but the terrible Disqus software marked both responses as spam. BillyJoe wrote:

I still don't get it though. If the construction cost of 2 nuclear reactors is 27 billion and, if that translates to $80/MWH. Why doesn't the 2 billion in waste disposal for the two reactors translate to $6/MWH?

Where to start?

1) It doesn't make much difference to this particular situation, but the construction cost of $27 billion for the two Vogtle reactors does not "translate to $80/MWh". The $80/MWh is from a completely separate situation...it comes from a generic "desktop" study...not a study specific to the two new Vogtle reactors. The $27 billion for the Vogtle reactors will probably translate to over $100/MWh, even if the two reactors are completed and operated for 40 years. And the cost per MWh could even be infinite if the two Vogtle reactors never generate a single megawatt (which is a possibility).

2) The $2 billion is a number from "thedonster," not from me. The $2 billion number is based on a value of $1 billion for a "nuclear power plant" (not a "nuclear reactor") from "enoch arden." Neither "thedonster" nor "enoch arden" have ever presented any evidence that they have any knowledge of nuclear power, including the economics of nuclear power. In fact, "enoch arden" has demonstrated repeatedly that he is clueless.

3) So what would someone who actually knows something about nuclear power estimate the decommissioning cost to be for two nuclear reactors of the size of the two Vogtle reactors (roughly 1120 MW each) in the year 2020?

Well, here is a website that has the following:

https://www.world-nuclear.o...

An OECD Nuclear Energy Agency survey published in 2016 reported US dollar (2013) costs in response to a wide survey. For US reactors the expected total decommissioning costs range from $544 to $821 million; for units over 1100 MWe the costs ranged from $0.46 to $0.73 million per MWe, for units half that size, costs ranged from $1.07 to $1.22 million per MWe.

If the cost for units over 1100 MWe is $0.46 to $0.73 million per MWe (in 2013 dollars), the decommissioning cost for each Vogtle reactor would range from $515 million to $818 million. That's in 2013 dollars. Using the consumer price index (CPI) to adjust for inflation (not valid, but convenient ;-))...the cost in December 2019 would increase to $575 million to $913 million per reactor. So for two reactors, the December 2019 cost would be approximately $1.2 billion to $1.8 billion.

4) So now we just compare the $1.2 billion to $1.8 billion to the current estimated cost of $27 billion, to come up with 4.4% to 6.7% of the LCOE will be from decommissioning, right? No, that's wrong. The decommissioning probably won't come until after many years of operation. For example, the average reactor in the U.S. is currently about 38 years old. The present value of a future cost is much less, because money can be placed in escrow, earning interest, to pay for the future costs.

5) For example, let's escalate the cost of decommissioning the two Vogtle reactors 50 years into the future, based on the CPI of the last 50 years. (Again, that's not valid, but it's convenient.):

https://www.bls.gov/data/in...

Therefore, the cost of decommissioning the two reactors combined increases from $1.2 billion to $1.8 billion in December 2019 dollars to $8.2 billion to $12.3 billion in 2070.

6) How much would have to be set aside in December 2019 to have $8.2 to $12.3 billion in 2070? Let's assume we invest in the S&P 500 (and re-invest dividends) and the returns of the next 50 years are like the last 50 years:

https://dqydj.com/sp-500-re...

The returns, not adjusted for inflation, from December 1969 to December 2019 are 14550%. In other words, $1.2 billion invested in the SP 500, with dividend re-investment, in 1969 would have produced $175 billion in 2019. So we only need $8.2 billion (in year 2070 dollars), but we have $175 billion (in year 2070. So to get a fund of $8.2 billion to $12.3 billion in 2070, if the SP 500 returns continue for the next 50 years like the past 50, we'd only have to invest $56 million to $85 million in 2019.

7) Of course, all these numbers are simply illustrative, based on data from the last 50 years. But it is important to note that nuclear power plants typically obtain money for decommissioning by charging 0.1 to 0.2 cents per kWh.

Let's see who knows what they're talking about

Parameter in Year 2050	Mark Bahner	MarkW	Kaiser Derden	fred250	Samuel C. Cogar
U.S. coal consumption, relative to 2007	Down >80%
U.S. gasoline consumption, relative to 2007	Down >80%
Number of coal-fired power plants operating, relative to 2007	Down >90%
Light-duty vehicle passenger-miles traveled by electric vehicles	>90%
Chinese coal consumption, relative to 2018	Down >10%

EIA AEO 2019 projections versus MAB (yours truly)

The Energy Information Administration has a long and sorry history of underestimating the growth of renewable energy in the U.S. I think their AEO (Annual Energy Outlook) in 2019 is no different. On a somewhat-related note, the folks at the Watts Up With That website seem to be hung up on the fantasy that coal-fired electric power will remain at the levels projected by the EIA. They also dream of a nuclear power revival in the U.S...or even that nuclear power won't fade to nearly nothing in the U.S. in the next 3 decades. (Don't get me wrong...I like to dream about liquid fluoride thorium reactors myself...but I know it's a dream at least for the next 2-3 decades.)

Here is a table that contains energy consumption in quads (quadrillion Btu) in the U.S. in 2017, and then projected for 2030, 2040, 2050, and 2070. There are values from the the EIA AEO 2019, and values from me (MAB).

There are many significant differences between the EIA projections and mine. Here's a list, in rough order of importance:

1)  I think the EIA once again blows their "Other Renewable Energy" projections, big-time. They have Other Renewable Energy (i.e. photovoltaics and wind) only increasing from 3 quads to 9 quads from 2017 to 2050. My projection is 3 quads to 42 quads from 2017 to 2050. In particular, I predict an explosion in photovoltaic electricity production. 

2)  The EIA only has coal dropping from 14 quads in 2017 to 11 quads in 2050. I predict coal will be at 2 quads in 2050. I expect more than 90 percent of the utility coal-fired power plants that were operating in 2017 to be closed by 2050.

3)  The EIA has nuclear power only dropping from 8 quads in 2017 to 7 quads in 2050. Presumably they expect virtually all the nuclear plants operating in the U.S. in 2017 to still be operating in 2050. I think that's insane. Many of those plants would be over 70 years old!

4)   The EIA predicts virtually no drop in oil consumption from 2017 to 2050. I predict a drop of 36 percent, as the transportation system becomes electrified (with battery operated cars, buses, and many trucks). 

Six reasons why hydrogen-boron fusion would be the ultimate solution to global warming

1) The pollution from hydrogen-boron fusion is essentially zero. Per unit of electricity generated, the life cycle pollution impacts from hydrogen boron fusion are less than natural gas, or even wind or photovoltaics (solar cells). (Let alone nuclear fission, oil, or coal.) Even life cycle carbon dioxide emissions from hydrogen-boron fusion are less than for photovoltaics or wind, because the amount of material needed to build a hydrogen-boron plant of a given electrical size is a tiny fraction of the material needed for a similar size plant.

2) The energy is extremely high density (extremely compact). When combined with reason #1, this means that hydrogen-boron fusion plants can be located even in the middle of densely populated cities. A hundred hydrogen-boron fusion plants could be located in the basements of buildings in downtown Manhattan, and could supply all the electricity needed by NYC.

3) Due to reasons #1 and #2, hydrogen-boron fusion completely eliminates the need for a nationwide electrical grid. No more high-tension lines, brownouts or blackouts.

4) Due to reasons #1, #2, and #3, electricity from hydrogen-boron fusion can be delivered to sites hit by disasters long before electricity from conventional sources. After major hurricanes, electrical power is often out in some areas for weeks, or even months. With hydrogen-boron fusion, a tractor-trailer trucks containing hydrogen-boron electrical generating plants could be used to repower a city like New Orleans in less than a week.

5) Hydrogen-boron fusion is continuous, not intermittent. Unlike solar cells and wind, hydrogen-boron can produce as much power as needed, any time needed. An electrical grid powered significantly by photovoltaics or wind would have a horrendous problem trying to match the intermittent supply of those energies with the demand for electricity.

6) Hydrogen-boron fusion can be used to power virtually ANY device. For example, airplanes use petroleum, because it has such high energy density (per unit volume and per unit mass). And the space shuttle’s external fuel tanks contain hydrogen and oxygen. But fusion is roughly a million times more powerful per unit mass than chemical reactions. So the amount of hydrogen required to fly from NY to LAX could literally be found in the bottled water brought on board for passengers to drink. And the space shuttle’s external tanks could be literally replaced by fuel weighing less than the astronauts themselves.

How I'd solve the world's energy problems...if only I had $10 billion

Regular readers of Random Thoughts will know that I predict spectacular economic growth in the 21st century.  The largest part of that is due to progress in computers (which I agree with Ray Kurzweil will equal and then vastly exceed the capacity of the human mind).

But another part of that probably spectacular economic growth is that money makes money.   For example, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has about  $30 billion.  Why, if I had only 1/3rd that amount, I could solve the world's energy problems myself!  :-)

How would I do it?  Three words..."technology inducement prizes."  Probably the most famous technology inducement prize was the Ansari X Prize, given to the first private entities to put astronauts into space. 

What technologies would I choose?  Three technologies:

1)  Non-tokamak fusion,
2)  Photovoltaics, and
3)  Methane hydrates. 

My reasoning is as follows:

1)  Non-Tokamak Fusion:  There is almost no doubt in my mind that controlled fusion is where energy technology will eventually end up.   I was at a scientific/technical conference recently, where the subject was the future of energy technology.  There was essentially universal agreement that energy technology would eventually end up at either solar or nuclear.  Unfortunately, the "nuclear" was thought to be nuclear fission, which I don't agree is the final solution for energy problems.  In my mind, the "nuclear" is fusion.  On the other hand, tokamak fusion seems to be headed nowhere.  The latest tokamak device is the International Tokamak Experimental Reactor (ITER).  Talk about boondoggle to the nth power.  More than a decade to build (a single reactor), with years (or even decades) of experimentation to follow that.  What a mess.

2.  Photovoltaics:  The other technology I'd concentrate on is photovoltaics.  This is just in case the fusion thing doesn't work out.

3.  Methane Hydrates:  This is the third technology I'd concentrate on...just in the very unlikely event that both fusion and photovoltaics don't work out.

Note:  I'm publishing this now...but I'll be doing some more work later.

Alternatives to tokamak fusion

This is a draft of a summary I'm doing on alternatives to tokamak fusion.  It seems to me that if any of these alternatives could be developed into commercial applications within the next 1 to 5 decades, it would be the most important invention since...well, fire.  I know that sounds incredibly hyperbolic, but consider this:  Let's say any of these technologies could be developed such that they could compete with coal or nuclear fission in the operating cost to generate electricity (that's about 2 cents per kilowatt hour in the United States).  Well, fusion is vastly more environmentally friendly than coal or nuclear fission, so the non-tokamak fusion alternative would very quickly replace all the world's coal and nuclear fission power plants.  It would also replace natural gas power plants, because it would be cheaper.  Finally, it would represent an essentially limitless supply of electricity...and dramatically hasten the day when automobiles use electricity (e.g. plug-in hybrids) for most or even all of their power.

1. GENERAL SUMMARY

Description:  This document contains summaries of alternatives to standard (tokamak) fusion.  The general positive attribute of these alternatives is that they appear to require far smaller equipment expenditures to create fusion.  In many cases, the amount  of money required to create fusion—although not a break-even rates—is less than $1 million.  None of these alternatives are as far along developmentally as tokamak fusion, but it seems possible that some alternatives might “leapfrog” tokamak fusion, given the current developmental path of tokamak fusion (i.e., a break-even test reactor a decade away, and commercial reactors at least 2-3 decades into the future...if not more).

Pluses:

• Alternative technologies appear to require significantly smaller equipment expenditures to achieve fusion, compared to the standard tokamak.

• All these alternative technologies are significantly less studied than standard tokamak fusion, so it should be possible for “newcomers” to the field to quickly make important contributions...particularly given the smaller equipment expense to generate fusion.

• These technologies generate no long-lived radioactive materials.

• Fusion creates very large amounts of energy in a very small space; a 20 MW (megawatt) power plant (comparable to the UNC power plant) could fit in a 2-car garage.  Therefore, even densely populated areas such as New York City could generate all their power needs locally.

• These technologies produce no greenhouse gases; no air pollution in fact. Further, they also require no mining or resource extraction to provide fuel to the plant.

Minuses:

• By far the most serious potential minus to all these technologies is that they might conceivably be used to produce powerful explosions. This is not to say that any of them could generate such explosions by accident; merely that people with malicious intent might be able to produce powerful explosions.  Given the inexpensive nature of these technologies, such weapons would not necessarily even require expenditures by governments; small groups might be able to produce the devices.

2. PLASMA FOCUS REACTOR (HYDROGEN-BORON FUSION)

Description: Focus fusion reactors use a plasma focus device and hydrogen-boron fuel to achieve fusion.  This requires a much higher temperature than conventional (deuterium-tritium) fusion; hydrogen-boron fusion requires a temperature of approximately 1 billion degrees Kelvin.

“The plasma focus device consists of two cylindrical copper or beryllium electrodes nested inside each other. The outer electrode is generally no more than 6-7 inches in diameter and a foot long. The electrodes are enclosed in a vacuum chamber with a low pressure gas (the fuel for the reaction) filling the space between them.  A pulse of electricity from a capacitor bank (an energy storage device) is discharged across the electrodes. For a few millionths of a second, an intense current flows from the outer to the inner electrode through the gas. This current starts to heat the gas and creates an intense magnetic field. Guided by its own magnetic field, the current forms itself into a thin sheath of tiny filaments; little whirlwinds of hot, electrically-conducting gas called plasma.  This sheath travels to the end of the inner electrode where the magnetic fields produced by the currents pinch and twist the plasma into a tiny, dense ball only a few thousandths of an inch across called a plasmoid. All of this happens without being guided by external magnets.  The magnetic fields very quickly collapse, and these changing magnetic fields induce an electric field which causes a beam of electrons to flow in one direction and a beam of ions (atoms that have lost electrons) in the other. The electron beam heats the plasmoid thus igniting fusion reactions which add more energy to the plasmoid. So in the end, the ion and electron beams contain more energy than was input by the original electric current. These beams of charged particles are directed into decelerators which act like particle accelerators in reverse. Instead of using electricity to accelerate charged particles they decelerate charged particles and generate electricity. Some of this electricity is recycled to power the next fusion pulse while the excess, the net energy, is the electricity produced by the fusion power plant.” (Focus Fusion Society, 2005).

Pluses: 

▪ Generates electricity directly (from a particle decelerator); therefore, a steam generator is not required.  This is claimed to significantly reduce capital cost.

▪ Does not require external magnets to contain plasma.

▪ Appears to be technically far along in development (fusion apparently achieved, and claimed to be within striking distance of breakeven).

Minuses:

▪ Requires even higher temperatures than standard (deuterium-tritium) fusion. 

Researchers:

1. Eric Lerner, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (LPP), Inc.   

2. Bruce Freeman, Texas A&M.

3. Hank Oona, Los Alamos National Laboratory.

References:

1. PES Network, Inc., 2006.  “Sandia Z-Pinch and Focus Fusion Compared.” Available at: Comparison of Z-Pinch and Focus Fusion
   

2. Focus Fusion Society, 2006.  “Lawrenceville Plasma Physics and Chilean Nuclear Commission Initiate Experimental Collaboration to Test Scientific Feasibility of Focus Fusion.  Available at: Focus Fusion feasibility test in Chile 

3.  SONOFUSION

Description:  Sonofusion is an extension of the phenomenon of sonoluminescence, which occurs when a cavitation bubble collapses.  Sonofusion as produced by Taleyarkhan (Purdue) involves use of deuterated acetone (i.e., the hydrogen in the acetone is in the form of deuterium, which is necessary for fusion to occur).

Pluses:

▪ Appears to be mechanically very simple.

Minuses:

▪ None apparent.

Researchers:

1. R. P. Taleyarkhan at Purdue University (formerly of Oak Ridge National Laboratory). 

3. D, Felipe Getain (Impulse Devices Inc.)

4. Acoustic Fusion Technology Energy Consortium (AFTEC, consisting of:  Boston University; Impulse Devices, Inc.; Purdue University; University of Mississippi; and the University of Washington Center for Industrial and Medical Ultrasound). 

References:

1. Acoustic Fusion Technology Energy Consortium (AFTEC), 2005.  “AFTEC formed.”  Available at: AFTEC formed.

5. About.com, 2005.  “Rusi Taleyarkhan - Bubble Fusion.”  Available at: Sonofusion (aka, "bubble fusion")
   

4. PYROELECTRIC CRYSTAL FUSION

Description:  “In April 2005, Seth Putterman's group at UCLA published a paper describing a new method of nuclear fusion based on pyroelectric crystals. In the experiment a pyroelectric crystal, lithium tantalate (LiTaO₃), was heated 25 C in low-pressure (0.7 Pa) deuterium gas generating a potential of 100 kV. The electric field of 25 GV per meter, focussed by a tungsten needle, ionizes the deuterium which is accelerated into a target of erbium deuteride (ErD₂). There the deuterium nuclei fuse about once in every million collisions to produce helium atoms and about 1000 neutrons per second.”

Pluses:

▪ Appears to be mechanically very simple.

▪ Appears to produce fusion (in miniscule amounts) with extremely simple equipment.

Minuses:

▪ May never be capable of generating breakeven energy.

References:

1. “Pyroelectric Crystal Fusion.”  Available at:  Pyroelectric crystal fusion

5.     COLLIDING ELECTRON SPIRAL TOROIDS REACTOR (CESTR)

Description: In a manner similar to ball lighting, electrical spiral toroids generate their own magnetic containment fields.  The CESTR attempts to collide toroids of boron and hydrogen to produce hydrogen-boron fusion.

References:

1. Electron Power Systems, Inc.  Explanation of the technology.  Available at:  Electron Power Systems, CESTR reactor