• Thank you for visiting HeavyEquipmentForums.com! Our objective is to provide industry professionals a place to gather to exchange questions, answers and ideas. We welcome you to register using the "Register" icon at the top of the page. We'd appreciate any help you can offer in spreading the word of our new site. The more members that join, the bigger resource for all to enjoy. Thank you!

Just heard about a diesel shortage?

.RC.

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2012
Messages
787
Location
Central Qld, Australia
but we have a manufacturer here in Australia,

Not of solar cells we don't. I think there is an assembler of imported components, but no actual manufacturer that starts with raw sand. The Sydney plant that did make them shut down decades ago as it was too expensive to make them here.

As for the ACT being 100% renewable. It really isn't. It has a big extension cord into NSW.

We are seeing the folly of the renewable revolution right now. It is not cheaper once you factor in storage. You more then double the price then. Right now fossil fuels are powering Australia, with a bit of wind.

https://anero.id/energy
 
Last edited:

chidog

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2021
Messages
808
Location
kent, wa
Not really true
Worked nuke 21 years, main released gas off the system was Nitrogen, krypton was a minute amount of a years worth of the gas that we purged and allowed to decay away for months prior to release. Gas system reduced radiologic gases to a minimum and any H2 recovered was run thru a recombiner to make water discharged thru the system as that had tritium to decay off.
Cost at the nuke per Kwh was less than $.05
Mainly due to using the fuel for 18 mos then reloading a third new and running additional 18 then on next reload the last of the first load was exchanged so got 3 18 mo cycles on 92-94 assemblies out of 196. They are 11” square and 14 ft long with only 4-6% of that entire assembly enriched uranium.

Was a fully constructed ready to implement recycling facility at Savannah River until 1998, built in 1972, sat unused until dismantled due to regs placed by the Fed that banned it being used.

Is around 40% reusable fuel in a 3 cycle ‘burned’ nuke assembly, just can’t due to regs, the French do that regularly.

Dirt burners unless pass the half century mark and do not convert to CNG are at around $.07-.08 kwh on Gas are above $.15,
Combustion Turbines are close to $.24 kwh even wind and solar are over $.06 due to capacity factor limits
Most odd power sources not base load are peaking value only or used supplementally.

Only really cheap electricity is Hydro but the Greenies do not like the impoundments. Bagnall dam here even with upgrades and massive improvements where is over 90 now makes electricity at less tha $.005 kwh, just not sustainable due to water loss over time. All hydros have to await a flow change or impounded water level recovery. Bagnall’s capacity factor is just 65%, Callaway Nuclear was 97% the largest dirt burner here was at 77% at Labadie.
When you factor in the huge costs to build and maintain the plants its much higher than you think. The whole industry is likely highly subsidized, similar to airlines paying for fuel, they aren't paying pump price, though we are lead to believe they are. Hydro generation is the ultimate cheapest power but we pay way more than we should for it. And again similar to airline fuel we pay high for fuel so they get it dirt cheap. We pay high for hydro power so nuke looks cheap.
 

John C.

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
12,870
Location
Northwest
Occupation
Machinery & Equipment Appraiser
I don't have facts on the costs of either but have been in both types. I can say that the size of a nuke plant is little different than the size of a coal plant. I know there is some extra shielding and a containment building but a coal plant has huge stock piles, a stocker / feeder with miles and miles of conveyor belts, a railroad or two and millions of dollars in heavy equipment just to feed the plant. Water usage is about the same but the effluent coming off the coal plant not a lot less hazardous than the spend rods from a nuke. It's not just the smoke in the air. It's the ash dumped on the ground and left in giant piles or settled out in huge ponds. It's the reclaim of mining areas back to pre-mining contours and vegetation. I think that neither type of power plant will ever receive government subsidies or incentives for production in the near future. I also think that nuke plants will be run far beyond their design life because coal plants are currently not being built. Businesses are just moving on from that type of fuel.
 

cosmaar1

Senior Member
Joined
May 14, 2020
Messages
523
Location
Ohio
Thought this was funny.

Called a local station that sells off road fuel… price 5.86

Call another station for off road fuel… price 5.89

Drive in town and buy 25 gallons of on road fuel for 5.49


WTF so much for saving 70 cents or so of Ohio taxes.
 

chidog

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2021
Messages
808
Location
kent, wa
They do that just because they can. Typical of any sort of retail outlet, they add on all they can get away with.
 

DMiller

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Messages
16,634
Location
Hermann, Missouri
Occupation
Cheap "old" Geezer
Kwh price from a source plant is based on the cost to build and maintain, gets figured to a thirty year loan completion then they refinance against value of plant to run next thirty often decreasing the cost per kwh. Power stations work to net zero cost/payback on the loans against operations, they do not ever make a profit just ‘sell’ the power generated to the parent company at end costs.
Nuke generally has 500-700 employees, dirt burners tend to have less permanent staff but function with multi facility roving repair crews so in essence have close to same
MW to MW output for employed personnel.
Previous employer had four dirt burners tied at the hip this way.
Coal plants burn unimaginable volumes of fuel, Labadie is 2400mw output(Max) and burn roughly 180 car loads of PRB coal in 18-20 hours where on hard coals was less than 140 same time frame. That is 80 long ton coal per car, some have pushed that to 100lt.
Callaway used 92-96 $750,000.00 EACH new assemblies over 17 months with refueling occurring during the 18th. That price is rising but so is coal. Plant for plant and sub assembly support equipment nuke and dirt burner similar. Containment ‘Can’ and support buildings for radiologic systems is about same as coal handling expenses. Callaway 2 at 1160mwe the completed unit as 1 was initiated but never built absorbed the costs of the mechanical systems for the second to be built unit at $2.1billion 1980 dollars, Rush Island Coal station completed in 1982 two units at 1200mwe, the final two units there never built and not purchased so did not require the absorption process was built at $980 million so essentially same price unit for singular units. Nuke required extensive lead time initiated purchases to construct as fewer suppliers, coal burner was out a year on lead time as been explained by engineers where could almost be bought on as constructed basis.
Union Electric already had the Reactor vessel, the steam generators and all hard mechanical machinery for the second nuke much was scrapped in the late 90s as costs had already been absorbed. Kwh prices are related to those and the built in decommissioning expenses paid as plant operates. Callaway currently has $3bil banked to decom the site.
Oddity of nukes spent fuel, the plants do NOT own the fuel assemblies, are leased from DOE, they or rather WE own those spent assemblies as are removed from use.

BTW, never heard on ANY subsidies or subsidized expenses at the nuke, company bought, paid for and paid for installs of everthing.
 
Last edited:

DMiller

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Messages
16,634
Location
Hermann, Missouri
Occupation
Cheap "old" Geezer
Ugly part of Nuke work was the INCESSANT regulatory morons up everyone's bidness trying for promotional advantage 'discoveries', Callaway 2 was in Construct phase during the Carter Reagan Years with Severely high interest rates and then TMI went off. Around a third of the facility was in construction where knee jerk 'Updates' 'Uprates', Increased Safety protocols were to be installed, 99% of which are NO LONGER INSTALLED or utilized. Biggest expense at the Nuke was Knee Jerk decisions on part of Regulatory that does nothing but add expense, has little value when look at broader perspective. Callaway sits atop a high spot, some 250 feet ABOVE the Missouri River on a Plateau, we were required by Fukushima responses to implement Flooding Concern Remediations. For Chernobyl the response was EMERGENCY Fuel Cooling similarly to TMI issues where NRC could not validate any of the scenarios from either occurring at Callaway so those did NOT happen a second time.
Ameren UE pays the NRC Reps in plant not the Fed, also paid any and all off site inspectors from other stations thru INPO(Independent Nuclear Power producers Organization) while at the site. Was always some form of Politically motivated Junkit occurring in the facilities around the US.
 

DMiller

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Messages
16,634
Location
Hermann, Missouri
Occupation
Cheap "old" Geezer
A 'New' Fuel Assembly
IMG_0058.JPG

Spent Fuel Dry cask on Transporter moving to storage cell, Filled cells on right with ventilation caps.
Holtelc 1500 cannister.png

Steam Generator when those arrived, THREE Year Lead time. One of Four. 743,000 lbs from France as do not make these here anymore.
DSCN5888.JPGDSCN5900.JPG


AMEREN Spent a great deal on Callaway while I was there, all those expenses were included in the $.05/kwh price
 

DMiller

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Messages
16,634
Location
Hermann, Missouri
Occupation
Cheap "old" Geezer
When nukes were first being built, the comment too cheap to meter was thrown down, not really true but expense to generate power was not that high.

BTW PRB Coal is currently $30+/ton not including transport fees. so around $500,000 +/- per DAY(24 hrs) running for 2400mwe just for fuel at dirt burner. If mix Hard Coals for better burn they run in the $60-80/t rate and changes that up drastically. for a dirt burner that equates to over 200mil in fuel at 17 months, the nuke fuel at 71mil, will be some higher today but still under 100mil but paid all at one time. Dirt burners can no longer release ash to public except cinders(bottom Ash) anymore than a nuke can ship old fuel offsite.

Dear Lord help us if HAVE to go full CNG supplied power as the CTG units can use near as much per minute as a common natural gas supplied home uses in a YEAR. Converted Dirt Burners use three times that.
 

DMiller

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Messages
16,634
Location
Hermann, Missouri
Occupation
Cheap "old" Geezer
Always loved the Water Distortion Views on the Spent Fuel Pool.

The Top of the assembly which is 14' long never gets above 14' below the top of the pool water when out of the storage cells.

IMG_0056.JPG IMG_0057.JPG

Getting those lovely hanging bustards into the outr cell boxes with water flow currents was a BUGGER!! The Transfer Slot is 32' top of wall to bottom of slot. The four little eyelets across the wall are a gate to hang across the opening to dewater the Cask Loading Pit in Left Photo, the filters in that hanging basket we had to lift for Emission Evaluation, NEVER LEFT Water Coverage and did not receive a dose level of any value doing that but they were determined by a underwater detector to be well over 3x 10 to the 3rd as to millirem from the contaminants within them. They stay IN THE POOL until can load into shipping casks in the water to ship offsite for burial.
 

chidog

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2021
Messages
808
Location
kent, wa

It reminds me of the old movie in the early 50's "The Day The Earth Stood Still", and Gort the robot that had power that could not be revoked. Thinking about Chernobyl, Fukushima etc. If this gets out of the bottle it is out of mans control, that is what makes it so dangerous, and that pollution is orders of magnitude higher than the use of earth generated mineral oils and fuels. The materials used to build and contain this stuff is instantly turned to worthless junk as well. How many billions of gallons of water are stored at Fukushima right now? All the waste from these plants is still at the plant. Water that is cooling the waste is constantly venting the nasty stuff, as well as the reactor it self, which has increased our back ground radiation how much higher than say in 1930? And we wonder why cancer took off like a jet plane starting in the 1950's?
 

DMiller

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Messages
16,634
Location
Hermann, Missouri
Occupation
Cheap "old" Geezer
Misconceptions abound, we were NOT allowed much dose at all at the nuke and sensors everywhere were looking for it, nothing gaseous vented off the spent fuel and any radiologic waste was sequestered in cubicles then vented thru activated carbon scrubbers with their own monitoring systems. The reactor in a PWR does not vent as is under pressure. 600psi matter of fact. As the gas levels accumulated they would be forced back into solution and released in the let down make up system. Water cannot but stay liquid even at 565 degrees except the nucleate boiling at surface of fuel tubes.
I had to fully understand the mechanism prior to being a operator in plant.
I was allowed 1/10 the radiation levels most doctors receive in a hospital and far less than that of a airline pilot at altitude.

Are so many Misconceived notions of how these machines work and what emissions they produce as to make head swim.
I received MORE radiation Dose when hauled rock from a quarry or worked the pit and as received barium for internal organ inspections than I ever received in Plant.

I got to enter some of the nastiest regions of the facility both on or off line and was tech on fuel receipt for ten cycles. Everything you stated are incorrect.

The FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report is available online for every active US Nuclear power station. The worst radiologic incident where Callaway Techs had to estimate actual received dosage was at a Coal Burner where a Source metering system that measured flow density off a coal bunker was failed to be stowed in its receptacle. The welders that accessed the bunker received a massive instantaneous dose yet survived, never happened at the nuke. One Super got gassed during the vacuum fill of reactor coolant system after a refuel, set off detectors in several buildings and was taken Home to gas decay off, had to poop on paper plates and bring back to plant, nothing showed in his waste stream. He is retired and teaching at Fulton MO University over 75 years old.

As to Waste, will see a Tank mounted to a Low bed Trailer on the Highway on Occasion, that will be radiologic waste from a nuke source or site. Clothing work materials as Maslin or rolls of sheet plastic are taken for incineration often to condense the volume for burial, radioactive activated metals are taken to a metal melt facility and processed into containers to transport radioactive materials tools or components, the radiation levels of these are hard to discern from background to which there is a ABUNDANCE of. Crushed Stone, freshly excavated clays, coal, some petroleum products, Boric Acid, and several other COMMON items at home have radiation levels far in exceedance of those levels inside a Nuke Plant. Spent fuel remains at all sites except TMI 1, all that mess was removed, bottled up and sent to NM for study on what went RIGHT in that event. Was on First fuel load when accident occurred ad was a H2 flash burn explosion in the can NOT a Radiologic release event that had to be vented off again THRU SCRUBBERS. No person outside of the plant grounds received any more dose than a normal day at TMI. Now Fukushima was different, H2 venting into Reactor Buildings(NOT Containment buildings) on Boiling Water Reactors accumulated inside, only took a slight static spark to set those off. The mess was due to that style(Mid 70s) BWR plant design and the fact the Japs had determined to place standby emergency generation BELOW Grade in the facilities and Fuel for them in Above Grade tanks that were swept away. Best radiation Shielding is H2O and so may not be able to detect it once they do release said liquids that have been filtered to extremes.
 
Last edited:

chidog

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2021
Messages
808
Location
kent, wa
Incineration? Melting metals? That is a huge amount of smoke and gases to have to collect so none of that radiation escapes, into the atmosphere. All plants around the world are constantly venting the stuff. There is not enough vessels to contain it all.


So is this not true now?

It sounds like this is the most dangerous part of the industry.
 
Last edited:

DMiller

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Messages
16,634
Location
Hermann, Missouri
Occupation
Cheap "old" Geezer
Incineration? Melting metals? That is a huge amount of smoke and gases to have to collect so none of that radiation escapes, into the atmosphere. All plants around the world are constantly venting the stuff. There is not enough vessels to contain it all.


So is this not true now?

It sounds like this is the most dangerous part of the industry.

until you work in one you will continue to exaggerate and over imagine issues, not worth my time to illustrate you are still misconceiving and exaggerating.
Over 21 years spent literally weeks in a fuel pool storage building entered the reactor building at power worked the Radwaste systems building. Always monitoring and monitored for radiation levels always aware not to let the potential Genie out.

When cite the idiots you have look really bad.
 

JD955SC

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2011
Messages
1,359
Location
The South
Incineration? Melting metals? That is a huge amount of smoke and gases to have to collect so none of that radiation escapes, into the atmosphere. All plants around the world are constantly venting the stuff. There is not enough vessels to contain it all.


So is this not true now?

It sounds like this is the most dangerous part of the industry.

you know people dive in those pools right?

https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/
 

John Shipp

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2015
Messages
645
Location
England
Occupation
forestry contracting
It seems to be one of them " love em or hate em" issues.

While there may be misconceptions, there seems little doubt that the repercussions from Fukushima and Chernobyl were serious and remain so. The long term storage of spent fuel and waste appears to be an unresolved problem, possibly the ultimate in " not in my back yard".

Wind and solar power have issues that need improvement, but don't seem to carry the long term risks of nuclear power. Unless they alter the planets atmosphere or rotation, in which case we really will be in the ...
 

DMiller

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Messages
16,634
Location
Hermann, Missouri
Occupation
Cheap "old" Geezer
Assisted the divers teams during my time at the Nuke, also assisted engineers as we 'Surveyed' or Audited the assemblies in the pool, never had a diver become sick nor high radiation level presented as were given strict work basis regions and NO Deviation allowances and divers STOOD ON TOP of the storage racks within feet of the assemblies. Worked with the crews that transferred the oldest assemblies into dry cask storage, another misconception on the part of Media, as usual. The casks are Stainless Steel, 1" thick with a internal cell arrangement to situate the assemblies, the steel is a Borated Alloy to preclude any chance of stray neutron fission events. Can is Loaded UNDER WATER, the lid then set on top of it(Lid and base plates are 2" thick Borated SS) the water filled can is transferred to a washdown pit and surveyed for carried contaminants, Our pool is kept clean enough they have not found ANY. The upper lid is then welded in place robotic welder and a dewatering system forces all the liquids out while Helium is placed in the vessel. After some twenty eight years in the pool the earliest assemblies are still making heat of radioactive decay, not enough for reactivity but enough to complete the evaporation of the water in the cans. Dependent of the known radiation level of Each assembly can be from 28-33 assemblies per cask, some have support mechanism tooling or other machinery also placed in the casks. The access ports are sealed then welded shut, then the First Can loaded into a SECOND SS can and the assembly capped with a solid lid then moved to the transporter bottle. The tank on the transporter remains On the transporter, that is lowered to the top of the storage cell(IN GROUND), the internal cask lifted and a bottom plate opened then the cask lowered into the hole. We were issued EXTRA radiation monitors/dosimetry for inspecting the storage yard, where did have/still have a list of items to inspect on the vent lids for the residual heat, came to find did not need those, LESS Than 2 millirem at contact on those lids, NON Detectable outside 1 meter above background. The Above Grade storage cells are similar, are Concrete outside on some, others are SS with a concrete liner and the sealed SAME Bottles emplaced inside them. Each assembly can vary dependent if has Burnable Poison insert or replaced control rods insert or thimbles from 1200# to 1545#

Our system was produced and is operated by HOLTEC Intl...
Dry Cask Storage and Transportation - Holtec International

Metal Melt is Controlled, the effect of melting steels is such the materials self decontaminate/encapsulate to a reduction level safe to handle bare handed. ALL Metals in fact ANY metal has radioactive properties as a raw ore to finished product. The Human Body has radioactive isotopes within from nearly every mineral vitamin source and a Whole Body Count will reveal what one has ingested due to release level radiation signatures. Bananas are the most severe with a potassium isotope that will show a spike in a WBC that technicians get a laugh off as spot it, can last up to FOUR DAYS until you absorb and process the mineral.
Radon is present ANY TIME earth is disturbed, Farming, Grading or excavation, Mining. Concrete in of itself is a severe Alpha emission radiation release that never goes away.
Without some level of Radioactive materials or Radiation we would not be alive.

Radiation in Everyday Life | IAEA
Natural Radioactivity in Building Materials | US EPA
Natural Radioactivity in Food | US EPA
 
Top