Electricity supplies cannot be guaranteed in Belgium in the month of November

[Master Delta Chief]

Note: I am not sure whether if this is like news worthy on this forum but I think this could be interesting topic to talk about regardless and since this is actually about tech, it should normally fit in. If not, feel free to remove the thread or lock it. 

 

Summary of articles: 
Earlier this month, the Belgian government warned the people about possible power outages due to the lack of nuclear power plants active. Those that are offline are under maintenance. Only one shall be active in the winter period as well as a gas-fired power station just outside of Brussels. They also noted that international electricity supplies from neighboring countries are not sufficient enough for the country. The people won’t be feeling anything about the supply gap until November. The prices about electrical delivery has jumped up as high as 411 euros (roughly $484) a megawatt-hour, compared to the average of 60.19 euros ($69,95) over the past year. Belgian authorities are hoping for a non-chilly winter in Europe. Once it gets colder, the demand for heating obviously rises and limits the available power export to Belgium, since neighboring countries prioritize serving their own residents first.

 

Belgium is also planning on phasing out their nuclear power plants by 2025. The plants who have started their operation between 1975 and 1985, are having safety issues over the past recent years. Without the proper plans and plants to replace the capacity, Belgium could be heading towards a supply crunch. The closures of these plants (including a few old gas-based facilities), will lead to a power generation shortfall of 3.6 gigawatts, according to GlobalData (London-based analysis and data provider). There are some solutions that could add some to the capacity like renewable energy, but the density of the country itself limits that possibility. As a note, Belgium isn't the country struggling to keep their old reactors safe.   

 

(Elia = Belgium’s Electricity Transmission System Operator)  

 

Quote from VRT article: 

Quote

"Security of supply cannot be guaranteed next November".  At present Elia cannot see a sufficient solution to ensure adequate supplies.  It notes that present Belgian and international electricity capacity won't be enough to avoid activating its outage plan that ensures supplies to priority customers and essential services.  Earlier Elia warned that the extra 750 Megawatt/day capacity that energy minister Marghem had ensured was insufficient to close the gap in shortfall.  An extra 1,000 Megawatts/day was needed.

Personal opinion:
I don’t buy it. The last 3 years (I assume), the government has been saying about these possible power outages, but it never came to it (as far I am aware of). The timing about these maintenance routines seem to be a little bit of out place, then again these things should happen. But, these power plants seem to be having failures multiple times throughout the past few years as mentioned in the summary. If the government is indeed right this time, I would be slightly surprised and

ashamed. Also,  as mentioned above, Belgium is planning on phasing out nuclear power plants. I honestly wonder about the supplies then. 

Sources: 
    1. Morison, R., Belgium faces Winter blackouts as aging reactors falter, Bloomberg, 2018-09-26,
       (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-26/belgium-faces-winter-blackouts-as-aging-nuclear-plants-falter)
    2. Electricity supplies cannot be guaranteed in November, VRT NWS, 2018-09-27,
       (https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/en/2018/09/27/electricity-supplies-cannot-be-guaranteed-in-november/)

[Cheeky Leo]

The prices are insanely high I have to say. 

[elfensky]

I understand having to maintain and modernize, but I still disagree and don't understand the reasoning of phasing them out. Nuclear is literally the best option with our current technology, especially considering we're not that earthquake prone.

[Curufinwe_wins]

Plants falter? Their INES event rates are lower right now (rolling three year average) than they've ever been. Their running at 89% capacity factor including maintenance, which is only "meh" for nuclear but is astronomical good compared to anything else.

 

Sounds more like the government is trying to drum up fear and support ahead of their forced shutdown plans which only cost Belgium money and make the country less safe and energy self-reliant.

[Donut417]

2 minutes ago, ElfenSky said:

I understand having to maintain and modernize, but I still disagree and don't understand the reasoning of phasing them out. Nuclear is literally the best option with our current technology, especially considering we're not that earthquake prone.

Yes, but Nuclear power plants have a shelf life. It sounds like they might be getting to the point of needing replacement. While other power producing technologies have gotten advancements, Nuclear power has been shunned around the world. Why? Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima. There have been better designs for new reactors but no one is researching or building them. People have lost faith in Nuclear power. 

 

It sounds like they need to look in to more Solar and Wind power options. 

[youmanyousef]

2 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

It sounds like they need to look in to more Solar and Wind power options. 

If only they were as cheap and reliable...

[Curufinwe_wins]

2 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Yes, but Nuclear power plants have a shelf life. It sounds like they might be getting to the point of needing replacement. While other power producing technologies have gotten advancements, Nuclear power has been shunned around the world. Why? Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima. There have been better designs for new reactors but no one is researching or building them. People have lost faith in Nuclear power. 

 

It sounds like they need to look in to more Solar and Wind power options. 

Like Germany has? While their carbon footprint and costs both soared?

 

Gen3+ and Gen 4 reactors are being built world wide right now. No excuse there. Decades of unscientific fear mongering has indeed done the damage. People don't even track when fossil fuel plants blow up or renewable failures. The simple math is that assuming the worst case LNT models (including all those accident cases), nuclear power is the safest power source known to man. And it isnt even particularly close.

[GoldenLag]

Just now, Donut417 said:

Yes, but Nuclear power plants have a shelf life. It sounds like they might be getting to the point of needing replacement. While other power producing technologies have gotten advancements, Nuclear power has been shunned around the world. Why? Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima. There have been better designs for new reactors but no one is researching or building them. People have lost faith in Nuclear power. 

 

It sounds like they need to look in to more Solar and Wind power options. 

There have been testing conducted with Thorium fuelcells. And its not like there arent thorium reactor designs lying around. 

 

Only thing missing would be an enrichement facility to create fuelrods, an thorium mine to gather fuel for massproduction.

 

Long story short, something could be arranged in a 20 year period.

 

Yes there is very little incentive to do so, but something has to be done as coalplants, regular uranium reactors and other facilites shut down. A market is growing, and something needs to fill it

[Sakkura]

Belgian beer is so good the whole country is going to have a blackout.

[GoldenLag]

5 minutes ago, youmanyousef said:

If only they were as cheap and reliable...

Except they are. Clouds only slow solar panels. Gravity based energybatteries hold power really well, like pumping water into damns. 

Wind is quite consistent, but a lot has allready been exploited but there is still a little more room.

 

Cost for solar is dropping and efficieny is increasing.

 

I dont have data om windpower, but looking at Denmark and their extencive spending there is certainly a decent ROI time

[Crunchy Dragon]

2 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

There have been testing conducted with Thorium fuelcells.

I heard about those too, I think they said they're trying to get it to work as an alternate fuel for cars and things.

 

12 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

While other power producing technologies have gotten advancements, Nuclear power has been shunned around the world. Why? Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima. There have been better designs for new reactors but no one is researching or building them. People have lost faith in Nuclear power.

There's a nuclear plant not too far away from my house. People are definitely building better reactors than those found in Chernobyl for example, otherwise nobody would be using nuclear power.

[Curufinwe_wins]

4 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

There have been testing conducted with Thorium fuelcells. And its not like there arent thorium reactor designs lying around. 

 

Only thing missing would be an enrichement facility to create fuelrods, an thorium mine to gather fuel for massproduction.

 

Long story short, something could be arranged in a 20 year period.

 

Yes there is very little incentive to do so, but something has to be done as coalplants, regular uranium reactors and other facilites shut down. A market is growing, and something needs to fill it

Thorium mining already exists. It isnt directly the answer though and nothing special to thorium makes it all that much safer than uranium methods. You dont enrich thorium either.

 

If you want, I can suggest some very good detailed sources about actual pros cons specific to thorium, but most of the ones thrown around are specific to continuous separation reactor designs, which have and can run on both thorium and uranium fuel cycles.

 

-Source: I have a bachelor's and Master's in Engineering Physics and Nuclear Engineering. Can give proof if required.

[Donut417]

3 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

No excuse there.

Well when one melts down we have a problem. OH SHIT thats has happen. Hell the DTE operated Fermi Nuclear plant south of where I live had a melt down in one of the reactors. So the fears are not unwarranted. Im not saying Im against nuclear power. BUT there are issues, such as melt downs and where in the fuck do we store the spent fuel rods? Also how do we stop mistakes from happening? Lots of people died during the incident at Chernobyl. While @GoldenLag is talking about Thorium reactors, we have not built any and to my understanding there are no plans to build any. 

 

Just now, Crunchy Dragon said:

There's a nuclear plant not too far away from my house. People are definitely building better reactors than those found in Chernobyl for example, otherwise nobody would be using nuclear power.

Im sure the Nuclear plant the next county over from my home is also "Better than Chernobyl" but It didnt stop a partial melt down of reactor 1. 

 

Quote

The main cause of the partial meltdown was due to a temperature increase caused by a blockage in one of the lower support plate orifices that allowed the flow of liquid sodium into the reactor. The blockage caused an insufficient amount of coolant to enter the fuel assembly; this was not noticed by the operators until the core temperature alarms sounded. Several fuel rod subassemblies reached high temperatures of around 700 °F (370 °C) (with an expected range near 580 °F, 304 °C), causing them to melt.^[4

 

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrico_Fermi_Nuclear_Generating_Station ]}

Like I said. Not against nuclear, I just think more time needs to be spent on research of more safe reactor designs. AND stop building these fuckers in earthquake prone areas. 

[Curufinwe_wins]

4 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

Except they are. Clouds only slow solar panels. Gravity based energybatteries hold power really well, like pumping water into damns. 

Wind is quite consistent, but a lot has allready been exploited but there is still a little more room.

 

Cost for solar is dropping and efficieny is increasing.

 

I dont have data om windpower, but looking at Denmark and their extencive spending there is certainly a decent ROI time

Denmark is a tiny country surrounded by ocean. Literally ideal in wind utility. Additionally their over all power usage is low enough that they can cheaply (ish) buy power from Germany and others when they need it, and sell to them when they don't. If the US generates 50% more power than it needed on a day, it literally wouldnt be able to sell it as that would power all of Mexico (let alone the lack of infrastructure).

 

Additionally Denmark's record setting achievements still place capacity factor under 30%. (And the US generates the most wind energy in the world, it's still a drop in the bucket of power use.) 

 

Also an cloudy day drops solar intensity by over one order of magnitude, rendering them effectively useless, not just slowed (unless you consider -90% "slowed")

[Crunchy Dragon]

1 minute ago, Donut417 said:

where in the fuck do we store the spent fuel rods? Also how do we stop mistakes from happening?

From what I recall, we bury it in the ground. Mistakes are bound to happen, nothing on this earth is perfect. We can take measures to lower the chances of a mistake happening, but humans and machines all have some errors.

[Jito463]

Government: We have power generation issues, so let's close power plants.

 

[Master Delta Chief]

22 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Yes, but Nuclear power plants have a shelf life. It sounds like they might be getting to the point of needing replacement. While other power producing technologies have gotten advancements, Nuclear power has been shunned around the world. Why? Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima. There have been better designs for new reactors but no one is researching or building them. People have lost faith in Nuclear power. 

 

It sounds like they need to look in to more Solar and Wind power options. 

I do agree with the fact that the government should be looking more into renewable energy, but the energy demand (for whatever reason) is so high, that it might not be enough. I think Belgium itself should have at least 3 or 4 nuclear power plants in general that are more up to date than those that are 'active' right now. 

[Sakkura]

1 minute ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

Denmark is a tiny country surrounded by ocean. Literally ideal in wind utility. Additionally their over all power usage is low enough that they can cheaply (ish) buy power from Germany and others when they need it, and sell to them when they don't. If the US generates 50% more power than it needed on a day, it literally wouldnt be able to sell it as that would power all of Mexico (let alone the lack of infrastructure).

Most of the Danish wind power is onshore, because Denmark bet on wind power before offshore wind was commercially developed. And the Danish wind resources are below average.

 

Being a tiny country is not an advantage, as that limits any geographical alleviation of wind variability (in other words, a small country is more likely to all have the same weather than a large country).

[GoldenLag]

1 minute ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

Thorium mining already exists. It isnt directly the answer though and nothing special to thorium makes it all that much safer than uranium methods. You dont enrich thorium either.

Ive got limited research on the topic, but as far as that stretch is mostly superficial. Its not all that safer, but with the challanges of using it, it does come with some nice perks. Such as shorter storage times after usage.

5 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

Source: I have a bachelor's and Master's in Engineering Physics and Nuclear Engineering. Can give proof if required.

Though im shure you are more specialized in certain areas its nice to have an expert on the subject. Correct me on anything i say as im eager to learn

 

8 minutes ago, Crunchy Dragon said:

I heard about those too, I think they said they're trying to get it to work as an alternate fuel for cars and things.

Not heard about the cars. Ive heard about tests in testreactors for certain fuelcells to see if they can use thorium/thorium mix cells instead of traditional uraniumcells. 

 

As far as i know India has been big on the subject due to their relitvly high concentration of Thorium in their soil. The testreactor test i know of is one in the testreactor in Norway that is now sqedualled for dissasmbly

[Curufinwe_wins]

2 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Well when one melts down we have a problem. OH SHIT thats has happen. Hell the DTE operated Fermi Nuclear plant south of where I live had a melt down in one of the reactors. So the fears are not unwarranted. Im not saying Im against nuclear power. BUT there are issues, such as melt downs and where in the fuck do we store the spent fuel rods? Also how do we stop mistakes from happening? Lots of people died during the incident at Chernobyl. While @GoldenLag is talking about Thorium reactors, we have not built any and to my understanding there are no plans to build any. 

 

Im sure the Nuclear plant the next county over from my home is also "Better than Chernobyl" but It didnt stop a partial melt down of reactor 1. 

 

Like I said. Not against nuclear, I just think more time needs to be spent on research of more safe reactor designs. AND stop building these fuckers in earthquake prone areas. 

Shippingport ran a thorium core ages ago as proof of concept. India is going full on thorium long term (building uranium pebble beds, then replacing those beds with mixed thorium just like shippingport, then making all thorium reactors.)

 

And other nuances, but typing long stuff out on a phone is bothersome. If you want, I can provide more sources and technical information than just about anyone would like so you can learn more about all that stuff. But that'd probably be best served by a PM chain later this evening. 

[Curufinwe_wins]

Just now, Sakkura said:

Most of the Danish wind power is onshore, because Denmark bet on wind power before offshore wind was commercially developed. And the Danish wind resources are below average.

 

Being a tiny country is not an advantage, as that limits any geographical alleviation of wind variability (in other words, a small country is more likely to all have the same weather than a large country).

Being a small country means high coastline length to land area ratio, which is ideal for wind. Even on shore where wind streams from the ocean still dramatically help by proximity.

[Crunchy Dragon]

2 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

Ive got limited research on the topic, but as far as that stretch is mostly superficial. Its not all that safer, but with the challanges of using it, it does come with some nice perks. Such as shorter storage times after usage.

I don't know much about it either, but Braniac75 mentioned it in this video:

 

[Curufinwe_wins]

2 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

Ive got limited research on the topic, but as far as that stretch is mostly superficial. Its not all that safer, but with the challanges of using it, it does come with some nice perks. Such as shorter storage times after usage.

Though im shure you are more specialized in certain areas its nice to have an expert on the subject. Correct me on anything i say as im eager to learn

 

Not heard about the cars. Ive heard about tests in testreactors for certain fuelcells to see if they can use thorium/thorium mix cells instead of traditional uraniumcells. 

 

As far as i know India has been big on the subject due to their relitvly high concentration of Thorium in their soil. The testreactor test i know of is one in the testreactor in Norway that is now sqedualled for dissasmbly

Much lower transuranic waste concentration is the single biggest benefit. But that is only an important factor if you dont do recycling. Continuous separation methods directly imply recycling anyways, so its practically mostly mitigated.

 

A single commercial scale rare earth metal mine side-channel products and separates more than the required 5000 tons of thorium a year, so it just ends up in the normal waste. Tbh it would be trivial to mine for it, the mines already exist. But right now the product is too cheap for much effort to be spent in doing anything with it. 

[Sakkura]

Just now, Curufinwe_wins said:

Being a small country means high coastline length to land area ratio, which is ideal for wind. Even on shore where wind streams from the ocean still dramatically help by proximity.

Not ideal because wind speeds are lower. You'll note that most major Danish offshore wind projects are off the west coast in the North Sea, or well off the east coast into the Baltic, rather than in the internal straits which would be closer to population centers.

[Curufinwe_wins]

It is also posited by some people that U233 separation from U232 is too difficult to be practical and U233 gammas are too harsh to be practically shielded against during attempted making and storage of nuclear weapons, and thus thorium cycles are more proliferation resistant. There are many in the industry that disagree, and suggest that any continuous separation method is an unacceptable proliferation risk. (Note these are the type of people, myself included that see core event frequencies of 1 per Million-reactor-years as unacceptably high for a new reactor design. That is how paranoid and safe our plants have to be.)