Can a Closed Nuclear Power Plant from the '70s Be Brought Back to Life?

https://www.wsj.com/business/energy-oil/biden-nuclear-power-plant-loan-michigan-eee64904

by fortran77 • 2 years ago

19 51 2 years ago

wsj.com

mjevans• 2 years ago

https://archive.is/3qcPF

Is this a video? This capture doesn't look complete.

wkat4242• 2 years ago

Unfortunately the archive link also lacks the full article. I guess the wsj found a way to detect it. Bypass paywalls clean also failed. Same with archive.org

shiroiushi• 2 years ago

Yeah, I can't read it either with my paywalls filter. Oh well, I guess it's not that important anyway; there's no shortage of other news articles to read.

thrdbndndn• 2 years ago

I'm more curious why it would even work to begin with.

akadruid1• 2 years ago

This article from earlier this year covers much of the same ground:

https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/04/03/1090603/how-to-r...

AtlasBarfed• 2 years ago

..... But why?

If it was up and running it would be 4-8x or so more expensive than solar/wind. I guess if there was proper carbon taxation it would be price competitive with gas turbine, but ... there isn't.

On top of that you need to install new control systems and probably do huge amounts of integrity checks. Probably an entire new round of NIMBY approvals and delays and lawsuits.

chaffroomba• 2 years ago

it would be 4-8x or so more expensive than solar/wind

Is that accounting for the renewable's inherent need for very expensive energy storage? Because otherwise you need to build that gas turbine to cover for when sun isn't shining.

35mm• 2 years ago

Or the cost of processing nuclear waste for 1,000s of years?

ZeroGravitas5• 2 years ago

The current trend is moving from "baseload and peaker" to "renewables and firming".

Peaker and firming are both traditionally gas.

If you think that renewables have an inherent need for expensive storage then you're holding them to a higher standard than nuclear. This is both inaccurate and ahistorical given all the pumped hydro built specifically to complement nuclear.

Though the continued reduction in price of renewables and batteries means they probably already meet and exceed your higher standard anyway (see the recent Fraunhofer report that solar and batteries were cheaper than gas in Germany).

hi-v-rocknroll• 2 years ago

Disclaimer: I worked a nuclear shop of ex-GE folks in the 90's.

It feeds an all-too-common techno-religious obsession rather than big-picture economic and risk management for specific projects in specific locations. One of the biggest hurdles and costliest aspects of proposing nuclear projects in the US is getting insurance first for construction and then operation, and the few insurers who can cover them aren't going to underwrite risky projects. It's so much simpler and cheaper to put up solar and wind nowadays that it doesn't make any sense compared to the past when renewables were very expensive. Renewables are the path of least resistance. Centralized and distributed grid storage in various forms then becomes a bonus feature that allows for more resiliency under load and unplanned outages.

seanmcdirmid• 2 years ago

I thought the Us government was providing insurance directly for new projects/operations? It’s like one of their biggest subsidies for the industry.

belorn2• 2 years ago

Centralized and distributed grid storage sits at the same problem in that its generally much simpler and cheaper to put up natural gas turbines. Outside of solar + battery with hours of capacity and a predictable recharge cycles, grid storage are very expensive. The wast majority of countries in Europe is currently build fresh new solar, wind and natural gas power plants. Centralized and distributed grid storage are delegated to future tech with heavy subsidized test projects for non-commercial scale, like the green hydrogen in northern Sweden. This while new natural gas power plants are under constructions and even more sites being approved.

The US seems to be in a similar situations. Some states has weather that is suitable for battery and solar, but then the other states invest in more natural gas.

olejorgenb• 2 years ago

If it was up and running it would be 4-8x or so more expensive than solar/wind

What? Isn't the majority of cost associated with nuclear power capital cost? Have you computed the estimated cost based on the cost of getting plant up and running again? I couldn't find those numbers in the article (the one linked in the comments)

NikkiA• 2 years ago

Dozens of on-site staff vs 3 shifts of 1 or 2 people remote monitoring and scheduling a maintenance crew when needed.

hcfman• 2 years ago

Yeah of course. It's not like we are not already running the planet in a self destructive way.

fnord77• 2 years ago

I had no idea color LCDs existed in the 70s!

Seriously, I guess it isn't shut down completely and they added some modern displays?

pjc50• 2 years ago

Better (or at least readable) article: https://fas.org/publication/palisades-restart-finance/

Can a Closed Nuclear Power Plant from the '70s Be Brought Back to Life?

Related Stories