Isn't it about time....

AFJuvat · 08-31-2005, 07:08 PM

to start building nuclear power plants again?

Would significantly reduce our dependance on oil\coal.

Discuss

AFJ

Joeaksa · 08-31-2005, 07:10 PM

Done correctly and safely, would agree completely.

JoeA

pwd72s · 08-31-2005, 07:18 PM

I agree in principle. In practice? The last time it was tried in the Northwest it was a real cluster...ah, screw-up...known as WHOOPS...(WPPSS). None of the 3 plants went on line, thanks to massive regulations, cost over runs, you name it...the entire project was mothballed, a lot of people left holding the sack financially. So, I like your idea...just don't ask me to buy any of the bonds issued to make it work.

Dantilla · 09-01-2005, 08:40 AM

On the plus side, those mothballed cooling towers are great markers when flying around the area VFR.

1967 R50/2 · 09-01-2005, 08:58 AM

Yes...build more reactors.

techweenie · techweenie's Garage

Have they figured out how to make nuclear power plants worth it?

It takes massive amounts of energy to build one; massive amounts of electricity to operate. And I believe they have to operate for many, many years before there is a net gain over the energy it takes to get them going... hydroelectric and geothermal seem to be somewhat more efficient.

Cost per kilowatt-hour
Hydroelectric 2-8 cents
Coal 5-6 cents
Wind 5-8 cents
Oil 6-8 cents
Solar Thermal 9 cents
Nuclear 10-12 cents
Solar Photovoltaic 15-20 cents

1967 R50/2 · 09-01-2005, 09:33 AM

Tech-

Curious as to where you got your costs. Anyway, it brings up a good point.

Coal is more efficient than most people think and with a modern coal gasification plant, you don't put any Co2 into the atmosphere....it gets pumped into the ground and eventually chemically absorbed into rock. Interesting article on this process in Forbes a month or so back.

pwd72s · 09-01-2005, 09:39 AM

There are "greens" here in the NW who advocate "breaching" the hydoelectric dams here...to save the fish is the cry. I suspect other motives.

scottmandue · 09-01-2005, 09:42 AM

No... because there are cheaper ways to make electricity.

yellowline · 09-01-2005, 09:44 AM

That and has anybody noticed how we mostly fail to properly maintain anything we build? Look at out infrastructure. 30 years from now, I'd have to wonder the state those plants would be in...

IROC · IROC's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by techweenie
Have they figured out how to make nuclear power plants worth it?

It takes massive amounts of energy to build one; massive amounts of electricity to operate. And I believe they have to operate for many, many years before there is a net gain over the energy it takes to get them going... hydroelectric and geothermal seem to be somewhat more efficient.

Nuclear plants actually produce massive amounts of power relative to what they consume to operate (although I realize that isn't your total point).

Here's a idea of the amount of power that a nuclear plant produces: Assume you have a 1000 MWe coal-fired plant and a 1000 MWe nuclear plant. The nuclear plant will require 2000 lbs of nuclear fuel to produce this level of power output for one year. The coal-fired plant will require 89 one-hundred ton coal cars per DAY to maintain this power output.

I used to work at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. A 3-unit plant (each producing 1150 MWe). The plant cost $900 million to build back in the '70s (dirt cheap by today's standards). The primary driver for the high (er) cost of nuclear power these days are the phenomenal costs of ensuring safe operation. Some of these costs are worthwhile while others are wasting the rate-payers money, IMHO.

As soon as public opinion eases the problems of building nuclear plants (NIMBY), then we'll see more plants being built. IMHO, the only real issue with nuclear power is what to do with radwaste in the from of spent fuel rods, etc. That is an issue. Safety really isn't. Today's plants are very safe.

Mike

Don 944 LA · 09-01-2005, 11:03 AM

wouldn't the rest of the world be afraid we were making weapons grade plutonium ???

Oh, wait ...... thats right, we can do ANYTHING

got a nuk plant not far from me..

Don

tabs · 09-01-2005, 11:08 AM

What does one think Yucca Mountain is all about...the REPROCESSING of NUclear fuel and then they are going to build a Nuck power plant up there...that is from an engineer on the project...

Jamie79SC · 09-01-2005, 11:20 AM

There are "greens" here in the NW who advocate "breaching" the hydoelectric dams here...to save the fish is the cry. I suspect other motives.

I'm one of those that wants to see dams off of the Snake and no more built. Salmon are the only motive I have. What ever else are you thinking of PWD?

speeder · speeder's Garage

Yeah, those freaking tree-huggers. Next thing you know they will be blaming greenhouse gasses for global warming and the rise in extreme weather events.

I've got a dirty little secret, (shushhh): There is an ugly side to growth. More people/more houses/cars/powerplants/less forest/a need for a constantly growing economy in developed and over-populated areas of the globe, etc...

Start to fight it now. Start w/ population growth. Do not give in the the theory that "nothing can be done, it's inevitible". Bull*****. Work for slow growth or no growth in places that are already ruined w/ nothing but suburban concrete. Junk the SUV.

tabs · 09-01-2005, 12:14 PM

Hey Speeder finailly said somthin SMART.....the REAL PROBLEM IS OVERPOPULATION...better to come to that conclusion late than never I suppose....Johnny Carson on his last show said..."When I started the Tonight Show in 1962 there were 3 Billion people in the world tonight as I leave you there are 6 Billion people." That was in 1992....

However Mother Nature has a way of taking care of excesses on the Planet....famine, deiease etc...

Mike Bonkalski · 12:28 PM

When I was working at Argonne National Laboratory in the early 90's, DOE was hot on the trail of the IFR (Integral Fast Reactor) and instead of spending the coin to take the project to completion, they spent MORE to kill the project and allowed the intellectual currency to dissipate back to their own corners of the globe. Hindsight is 20/20, but I think this was a missed opportunity!

Integral Fast Reactor

The Integral Fast Reactor was an advanced nuclear reactor and complete nuclear fuel cycle technology development program. The goal of the IFR program has been to provide a proven advanced nuclear technology capable of overcoming the major technical issues confronting today's generation of nuclear power plants. However, the principal features of IFR technology have proven remarkabley adaptable to solving other problems of nuclear waste and weapons plutonium disposition.

The heart of an IFR power plant is a liquid-sodium-cooled reactor loaded with a new type of metal-alloy fuel. A new recycle technology called pyroprocessing is used to close the fuel cycle by separating the unused fuel from most of the radioactive waste. New fuel rods are fabricated by an inexpensive metal casting process.

Improved assurance of reactor safety was a major objective of the IFR program. Compared to today's reactors, safety of the IFR takes more advantage of the natural characteristics of the materials and the system design, and depends much less on proper mechanical and electric functioning of complex engineered systems or operator actions. This was demonstrated in EBR-II (Argonne's small prototype of the IFR) in 1986. In these tests, conditions were created that would be expected to lead to severe core melt-down in most types of reactors. EBR-II simply shut itself down without the operation of any active safey systems, without operator intervention, and without damage of any kind.

Improved management of high-level nuclear waste was another important goal of IFR technology development. The pyroprocess naturally keeps the most toxic long-lived radioactive materials (the transuranics) locked up in the recycled fuel material, where ultimately they are beneficially destroyed to produce electricity. The IFR process reduces the volume, heat generation, and longevity of nuclear wastes, making deeply buried high-level nuclear waste as benign as uranium ore within a few hundred years.

1967 R50/2 · 09-01-2005, 12:59 PM

Mike-

Sounds great....Can the notion be resurrected? Who was "spending the coin" to kill it? Oil co.s? Enviros? Certainly not the power companies...this seems like the holy grail of reactors.

Mike Bonkalski · 09-01-2005, 01:21 PM

From what I recall Congress killed the project budget somewhere between '92-'94 and approved the more costlier project of decommission. Who knows what lobby/political group/individual leaned on the right congressmen to get the project shut down. It really had benefits for all groups

I remember the buzz around the lab was that the remaining technology was sold to the Japanese. I wonder what it would take to buy it back now.