Fukushima to be reborn as $2.7bn wind and solar power hub

[NeoGreen]

https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Energy/Fukushima-to-be-reborn-as-2.7bn-wind-and-solar-power-hub

Fukushima to be reborn as $2.7bn wind and solar power hub
Twenty-one plants and new power grid to supply Tokyo metropolitan area
SHIKO UEDA and SUGURU KURIMOTO, Nikkei staff writers. November 10, 2019 06:23 JST

TOKYO -- Japan's northeastern prefecture of Fukushima, devastated during the 2011 earthquake and nuclear disaster, is looking to transform itself into a renewable energy hub, Nikkei has learned.

A plan is under way to develop 11 solar power plants and 10 wind power plants in the prefecture, on farmlands that cannot be cultivated anymore and mountainous areas from where population outflows continue.

The total cost is expected to be in the ballpark of 300 billion yen, or $2.75 billion, until the fiscal year ending in March 2024.

The government-owned Development Bank of Japan and private lender Mizuho Bank are among a group of financiers that have prepared a line of credit to support part of the construction cost.

[Pachamama]

1. That's awesome...

[IndyOp]

2. Respect - A decent attempt at making amends to all those who died. (n/t)

[soryang]

3. Are they going to remove the thousands of tons of radioactive trash piled up all over?

Or the million plus tons of radioactive water? Every time there is another hurricane and flooding the radioactive debris just goes somewhere.

Nice PR though.

[caraher]

4. Which will represent a fraction of the generating capacity lost in the accident

The power generation available is estimated to be about 600 megawatts, or equivalent to two-thirds of a nuclear power plant.

This is always how it goes with feel-good stories about converting a coal (or in this case, nuclear) plant to renewables. The power density in wind and sunlight is low. And in this case, they're even using land well beyond the boundaries of the complex itself

[progree]

5. "It's still far less power than the nearly 4,700 megawatts its nuclear reactors were capable of .."

Last edited Sat Nov 16, 2019, 07:57 PM - Edit history (2)

By 2024, 11 solar and 10 wind power plants on abandoned land in Fukushima Prefecture will generate 600 megawatts, which is roughly two-thirds of the energy output of a typical nuclear plant, Nikkei Asian Review and Yale Environment 360 reported. It’s still far less power than the nearly 4,700 megawatts its nuclear reactors were capable of generating before.
https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/12/20961827/fukushima-japan-renewable-energy-nuclear

The two sources above, Nikkei Asian Review (link in the OP) and Yale Environment 360 have no more information, both just cite the 600 MW figure and leaves it at that.

It's also maddening as hell that nobody distinguishes between capacity (in MW) vs. energy (in MWh or GWh). I don't know if the 600 MW is the capacity, or much less likely, a year-round average figure of what is generated (i.e. generating 600 MW * 8760 hours/year = 5,256,000 MWh/year).

For example a 600 MW capacity nuke at 90% capacity factor generates 600 MW * 8760 hours/year * 90% = 4,730,400 MWh/year.

Whereas a 600 MW capacity solar plant at 30% capacity factor generates 600 MW * 8760 hours/year * 30% = 1,576,800 MWh/year.

Same capacity but 1/3 the energy.

That said, admittedly the capacity factor of the Fukushima nukes has been 0% over the last 8 1/2 years.

[caraher]

6. Yes, there are also those maddening omissions

Even being generous and interpreting 600 MW as an actual average power rather than the peak generation, it's still not nearly what had been in place (though of course, infinitely more than the present 0% for nuclear at Fukushima you rightly point out!)

[Finishline42]

7. Can we still feel good if we consider the cost?

Expected cost of this project is $2.75 billion.

What would a nuke plant cost? Hinkley in England is over $20 billion pounds which is over $25 billion US$
What's the operational cost for nuclear?
How much does the 20 tons of fuel rods cost per year (typical usage per year per plant)?
How much to store the spent fuel rods?

So this wind and solar project costs about 10% of one nuclear plant, only takes 3 or 4 years to complete, and won't pollute the countryside for the 1000 years. Sounds like a good deal to me.

[progree]

8. Yes but the $25 bil buys 5.43 times the capacity and 16.3 times the energy that the $2.75 bil does

Hinkley, at 3,260 MWe has 5.43 times the MW capacity of a 600 MW wind/solar plant, and nukes operate at about 3 times the capacity factor of wind and solar, so Hinkley would be expected to generate 5.43 * 3 = 16.3 times as much energy per year.

And until battery systems economically supply more than the equivalent of 4 hours of storage, solar and wind will be backed up by dangerous and deadly fossil fuel plants.

But yes, there are nuclear fuel costs and higher nuclear O&M costs to consider.

And all the nuclear waste. And the much much larger volume of solar PV electronics waste.

[Finishline42]

9. No matter how much more nuclear produces it is a non-starter in a capitalistic system

The only way to build a plant is for the govt to provide loan guarantees and to cover catastrophic losses.

Current operational costs for nuclear is more than the cost to build out new wind and solar, so it's going to take govt support just to keep the nuke plants we have running.

Batteries are already economical in high cost areas and they will continue to go down in cost.

PV waste? My panels guarantee 80% output after 25 years which means they will still be producing over 50% of rated output after 50 years. What waste are you referring to?

[progree]

10. they don't include the deadly fossil back up power that intermittent solar and wind need

Last edited Sun Nov 17, 2019, 01:43 AM - Edit history (2)

On the capitalist thing, in figuring solar and wind costs, they don't include the fossil back up power that intermittent solar and wind need.

We're also obviously going to have to depart further from a pure capitalist model (that ignores externalities like pollution) if we are going to have even the slightest slimest chance of solving our climate heating problems. BTW, much of wind and solar are boosted by subsidies and state mandates.

Xcel Energy, where I used to work, was the first electric utility to commit to a 100% fossil-free system. But they admit that it will take new technology, or much lower storage costs, for them to achieve that. In the meantime, they are striving to hang on to their nukes.

I don't know any utility without major hydro resources that's got this figured out.

A power system's generation must meet the load every minute, or the system's frequency slows down and the generators trip offline and the power system goes down.

I do very much hope that batteries or whatever storage becomes economical, so the debate will end.

I haven't seen any battery systems that go beyond the equivalent of 4 hours of the project's solar or wind maximum capacity. For a solar system, that's fine for peaking plant operations that extend the combined solar/battery system into the late afternoon / early evening. But it's not something that works to provide around-the-clock capacity and energy.

PV waste? My panels guarantee 80% output after 25 years which means they will still be producing over 50% of rated output after 50 years. What waste are you referring to?

The waste in creating them in the first place, plus disposing of them. 25 years is not forever. What happens in 50 years? 75 years?

Google: solar photovoltaic pollution

Just one of many examples:

Solar Energy Isn’t Always as Green as You Think, IEEE Spectrum, 11/13/14
https://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/solar-energy-isnt-always-as-green-as-you-think

I could also dig up some NNadir writings on the subject, that nobody tried to refute.

To be clear, I'm not a pro-nuclear zealot, nor am I an anti-solar/wind zealot. I only responded to your #7 because it made it look like an apples-to-apples comparison where the nuclear cost nearly 10 times as much. I had to say something about the capacity and energy difference.

[Finishline42]

12. Many good points, but...

Coal, natgas, and nuclear plants are most economical when they are used as often as possible. Wind and solar undercuts how often and how much they are used. When they are used less, it drives up the cost of when they are being used. It becomes a death spiral due to rising operational costs vs the continued reduction in the cost of wind and solar, which of course doesn't have to pay for fuel. Coal plants are being closed everywhere due to added cost for transportation, pollution control and insurance on the fly ash containment ponds. But what is happening to coal will happen to natgas, IMO.

The thing with power plants is that they all use fuel and that fuel is a constant roller coaster of low cost to get market penetration and then rising costs due to 'market forces' (LOL). I think we will see that soon with natgas. The frackers are playing a shell game because of the short lived well life, forcing them to drill at a furious pace just to keep volumes up. There was something the other day that they are cutting back on drilling to get prices up. When the price goes up, the market will find alternatives - wind and solar.

You're leaving out transmission lines. Wind power is being seriously underutilized by the lack of transmission lines. Take Texas for instance. Wind has grown from producing less than 1% of the electricity in the ERCOT 15 years ago to 17% in 2018. Of course their grid is largely self contained and they built the transmission lines to get the energy from West Texas to where it was needed. They are starting to develop off-shore wind, which should even out when it's available. They are also starting to build large scale solar farms.

The 'Grain State Express', which would have brought wind power from Kansas/OK to Illinois, Indiana, KY, and TN was stopped by one county in Missouri.

If you want to start a conversation about start to finish on PV, then lets talk about the uranium cycle. It's a long lasting poison at EVERY step of the way. From mining, to processing, to making fuel rods to using fuel rods to storing spent fuel rods. It's a radiation hazard that kills. There are ways to minimize it but you can't eliminate it. Just look at what is happening at the Paducah processing plant and the radioactive ooze that is getting close to the Ohio River.

Of course making PV panels is a pollution hazard if not handled correctly, but it like a lot of manufacturing processes, the sooner you deal with it, the cheaper it is. You worry about what happens to a PV panel in 50 years? How about companies that will re-task them (they will still be making electricity and perfect for non-profits and situations out in the boonies) and recycle them? I worry about power plants that are no longer economical. Gas wells that dry up and the corporations that go chapter so they don't have to clean them up. Who's going to pay when we can't or won't pay the extra cost to keep an old nuclear power plant in operation? How long does it take to de-commission a nuclear plant and how many BILLIONS of $$$ will that cost?

RE: capacity and energy difference. Looking at those numbers avoids the reality of keeping our grid stable. IMO, Our electricity demand is like an 8 lane highway. There are times when 8 lanes aren't enough to handle the volume of traffic and other times when 2 lanes are enough. Absolutely we need the power plants during peak periods, but we also have been using them to deal with the momentary fluctuations in demand and supply during the day. This is where batteries provide that function quicker and cheaper than a power plant. And since most utilities are regulated monopolies - that cost of keeping a fossil fuel plant at the ready (boiler has to be kept at near operational temps) is part of their justified costs that they make $$$ on and pass the cost on to rate payers. Again this reduces how often a power plant is being used and increases the cost of the power they do produce.

[progree]

13. Until we have the storage technology, we need non-intermittent something to supply power 24/7/365

Last edited Sun Nov 17, 2019, 03:59 PM - Edit history (2)

Unfortunately, wind and solar do not provide power around the clock 24/7. A system cannot be all solar and wind (unless batteries and other storage is supplied on a far more massive scale than I've seen or heard of being proposed).

Hydro has been tapped out at least in the U.S. What's left, fossil, nuclear, and bio (which isn't that clean either and not cheap). So you can talk about solar and wind undercutting these, but they are essential until we have the battery or other storage so that customer load can be met every minute of the year.

"You're leaving out transmission lines" -- true, that's a big extra cost for wind and solar that should be added in.

"You worry about what happens to a PV panel in 50 years? How about companies that will re-task them (they will still be making electricity and perfect for non-profits and situations out in the boonies) and recycle them?"

OK, what about 75 years? And who is recycling them? And is the recycling process pollution-free?

"Gas wells that dry up and the corporations that go chapter so they don't have to clean them up. "

Yup, one of the disadvantages of solar and wind is they need dispatchable resources for backup, and on systems that don't have much hydro or geothermal available, that, unfortunately is fossil (particulary gas plants these days) and nuclear.

"Who's going to pay when we can't or won't pay the extra cost to keep an old nuclear power plant in operation? "

Pretty much the same people who are going to pay for the cost of people who die from air pollution from fossil fuel plants that are needed to back up intermittent wind and solar. 7 million deaths a year worldwide caused by air pollution, and that doesn't include CO2, which is burning up the planet and will be causing additional millions of deaths.

"How long does it take to de-commission a nuclear plant and how many BILLIONS of $$$ will that cost?"

Yup. Supposedly the costs of that are collected annually from the utilities customers in rates, and put in a fund, but frankly I don't know the accounting details or whether these funds are anywhere near adequate.

Certainly it should be an adder to the initial cost of the plant (adjusted for inflation and the time value of money) when new nuclear plants are proposed and costs are given.

RE: capacity and energy difference. Looking at those numbers avoids the reality of keeping our grid stable. (etc.) -- I worked as an electrical engineer and superintendant in System Operations at Xcel for several years .... wind and solar being intermittent and having no inertia (provided by rotating turbine/generator masses) are the worst for system stability, requiring backup. I could go on and on, but I do know the subject matter thoroughly.

"This is where batteries provide that function quicker and cheaper than a power plant. "

Batteries are cool (though toxic, but what isn't?). I can't wait for batteries to become widespread. But at least on large utility systems like Xcel, there were no problems with system regulation -- power plants operate more than plenty quick enough to meet the fluctuations. Not sure about cheaper than a power plant, it's kind of an apples and oranges thing again.

"And since most utilities are regulated monopolies - that cost of keeping a fossil fuel plant at the ready (boiler has to be kept at near operational temps) is part of their justified costs that they make $$$ on and pass the cost on to rate payers. "

Partly true -- fuel costs are passed on to the customers as part of the fuel clause adjustment. But utilities don't make a profit on that -- it's only capital costs that utilities earn a "rate of return" on.

Utilities, though they may be franchised monopolies, do have competition in the generation / energy supply market, and do have an incentive to keep their costs and rates low. They also have to explain to their public utility commissions / public service commissions, who determine their rates, and the media and their customers, why expenses went up.

I spent years and years on improving software to minimize our operating -- and fuel costs -- as did all other utilities that I know of (based on reading the literature, our relationships with our counterparts in other utilities, IEEE conferences etc.). We have software called by various names, such as "unit commitment" that helps determine the best mix of generation to put on line each day and when, as well as purchases to make, to minimize the fuel and operating costs for the day and week. I specialized in our unit commitment program for many years. So the notion that we're happily incurring extra fuel costs is just baloney.

Also, having to have conventional power plants on line extra hours, plus some on standby, just to back up wind and solar is a real cost. That is definitely true. And again, it's not a cost that we're gleefully incurring, or earning a profit on. We are not happy about it or earning a profit on it.

EDITED TO ADD: On the other hand, from an operating cost standpoint (fuel + variable O&M), nearly zero cost wind and solar energy is backing off fossil (mostly) energy that incrementally costs, oh, $20 to $30 / MWH (2 to 3 cents/KWH) .... Google search: economic dispatch, equal incremental loading. It's better to take the essentially free wind and solar energy (again from a fuel and variable O&M perspective) and have the fossil fuel plants backed down to minimum or on hot standby -- than to forego the almost free wind/solar energy and have the fossil plants generating at full power!

Again, like I say, when battery systems become economical enough, and not just these 4 hour systems used in certain peaking power applications, like I described in #10, then pretty much all this debate ends, and I pray that day comes soon.

[progree]

11. Addendum: I do agree that building a new nuke plant at 8,000 $/KW is very very expensive

Here's my latest figures:

Project ### Cost ### Size in MW ### Cost in $/KW

Vogtle #3&4 ### $27 Bil ### 2 X 1117 MW = 2234 MW ### 12,086 $/KW

Flamanville #3 ### $13.8 Bil ### 1 X 1600 MW ### 8,625 $/KW

Hinkley Point C ### 22 Bil pounds @ $1.24/pound = $27.3 Bil ### 2 X 1630 MW = 3260 MWe ### 8,370 $/KW

===============================================

Flamanville #3 is the first nuclear reactor to be built on French soil in about 20 years IIRC.

Vogtle (Georgia) is the only U.S. nuclear power plant under construction.

The V.C. Summer plant units #2 and #3, with combined 2234 MW capacity, in South Carolina was cancelled in July 2017, after $9 Billion being spent.

[FBaggins]

14. One error in there and one consideration left out

A new nuclear plant can be expected to have substantially more than just three times the capacity factor of wind and solar in Japan.

More importantly - they can be expected to last 60-80 years. Wind and solar would need to be entirely replaced two or three times during that period.