New Nuclear Power Plant
- Thread starter bwoods
- Start date
Help Support :
Uranium reserves
Estimates vary, but one article states that the power in uranium reserves exceeds that available from all fossil fuels, including the theoretical output from undersea methane deposits.
Furthermore, at roughly twice the cost ($240/kg) of conventional mining, the Japanese have developed a uranium specific fiber mat which can extract fissionable uranium from sea water - a virtually limitless supply. It's also my understanding that the cost of the uranium is a fractional component of the overall cost of nuclear energy - the capital needed for building the reactor complex and for its eventual retirement and decommissioning being the primary costs.
Estimates vary, but one article states that the power in uranium reserves exceeds that available from all fossil fuels, including the theoretical output from undersea methane deposits.
Furthermore, at roughly twice the cost ($240/kg) of conventional mining, the Japanese have developed a uranium specific fiber mat which can extract fissionable uranium from sea water - a virtually limitless supply. It's also my understanding that the cost of the uranium is a fractional component of the overall cost of nuclear energy - the capital needed for building the reactor complex and for its eventual retirement and decommissioning being the primary costs.
neptunebob
Well-known member
Don't forget about the Westinghouse - you can be sure!
DJ, some utilities are planning to build the Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear plant - I know since what's left of Westinghouse (now part of Toshiba) is based in PGh. They just moved their headquarters north of Pittsburgh from the east because they need more engineers. I'm hoping my brother (electrical engineering) can get a job there, even though he may have to go to China.
Favorit, isn't the concrete in a nuclear plant 4 feet thick? It seems that should last a long time but highways not lasting long here, I wonder how long?
DJ, some utilities are planning to build the Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear plant - I know since what's left of Westinghouse (now part of Toshiba) is based in PGh. They just moved their headquarters north of Pittsburgh from the east because they need more engineers. I'm hoping my brother (electrical engineering) can get a job there, even though he may have to go to China.
Favorit, isn't the concrete in a nuclear plant 4 feet thick? It seems that should last a long time but highways not lasting long here, I wonder how long?
I don't think it's the concrete longevity that is the issue with nuclear power plants.
It's the effect of the radiation on the metals that are used in the core and the surrounding plumbing. I'm not technical on the details, but as I recall the radiation embrittles and weakens the metals to the point where they must be replaced or retired before a major leak occurs. At some point it becomes cheaper to retire the entire plant rather than try to replace the deteriorated components.
I also recall a major foul-up when the Diablo Canyon reactor was being built. It was publicized in the bay area... someone managed to build a lot of the plumbing in a mirror image of what it was supposed to be. It was hugely expensive to redo all that work. The alloys used are special and not inexpensive (think very pure stainless steel, etc...).
It's the effect of the radiation on the metals that are used in the core and the surrounding plumbing. I'm not technical on the details, but as I recall the radiation embrittles and weakens the metals to the point where they must be replaced or retired before a major leak occurs. At some point it becomes cheaper to retire the entire plant rather than try to replace the deteriorated components.
I also recall a major foul-up when the Diablo Canyon reactor was being built. It was publicized in the bay area... someone managed to build a lot of the plumbing in a mirror image of what it was supposed to be. It was hugely expensive to redo all that work. The alloys used are special and not inexpensive (think very pure stainless steel, etc...).
Concrete itself tends to get stronger for many years after it is initially poured. However, reinforced concrete derives much of its' strength from the steel rebar inside, and I think the radiation affects that as well as other metals used in the reactor.
I think the fact that the Japanese
have had to go to such lengths to scavenge fissionable materials makes the point - we don't have nearly enough to meet all our needs for any length of time. If some new discovery or technology changes that, great.
I am not, in principle, opposed to nuclear energy.
Am however, terrified by the way plants have been built up to now, and those are just the things we do find out about.
We are now in the midst of a big discussion (led, I might add by conservative capitalists) on limiting the size of banks and financial institutions because anything "too big too fail" is too dangerous.
I fail to see why the same mentality shouldn't apply to nuclear power plants: We can play the "well, that was old technology" game all we like, but as far as I know, the laws of physics still apply...and so far, the mathematics underlying statistical analysis have proved grimly reliable.
Let one of these things fail, and we are talking about hundreds of thousands of cases of juvenile leukemia (the co-relation is so high, not even the government pretends otherwise here in Western Europe regarding cases since Chernobyl), an increase in non-Hodgins which is textbook-curve in shape and millions of valuable farm land which will now lie fallow for centuries...
We don't even have oversight over cookie dough in the US in 2009 and we are expected to believe that the industry will police itself?
Puh-lease.
have had to go to such lengths to scavenge fissionable materials makes the point - we don't have nearly enough to meet all our needs for any length of time. If some new discovery or technology changes that, great.
I am not, in principle, opposed to nuclear energy.
Am however, terrified by the way plants have been built up to now, and those are just the things we do find out about.
We are now in the midst of a big discussion (led, I might add by conservative capitalists) on limiting the size of banks and financial institutions because anything "too big too fail" is too dangerous.
I fail to see why the same mentality shouldn't apply to nuclear power plants: We can play the "well, that was old technology" game all we like, but as far as I know, the laws of physics still apply...and so far, the mathematics underlying statistical analysis have proved grimly reliable.
Let one of these things fail, and we are talking about hundreds of thousands of cases of juvenile leukemia (the co-relation is so high, not even the government pretends otherwise here in Western Europe regarding cases since Chernobyl), an increase in non-Hodgins which is textbook-curve in shape and millions of valuable farm land which will now lie fallow for centuries...
We don't even have oversight over cookie dough in the US in 2009 and we are expected to believe that the industry will police itself?
Puh-lease.
I am pro nuclear plants all the way.We have 8 reactors within a 100 miles of me..These new ones there making like the Westinghouse are true walk away reactors.They use Gravity and natural cirrculation to cool the core if there is a Scram or some other accident.We can never run out of Fuel for Nuclear plants because of breeder reactors which make more fuel than they use.The U.S. has had quite a few breeder's running in the past.Chernoybol would never have happened here.No Plant here would try to run the pumps on Turbine spin down and disabling all the saftey features of the plant during the test.The U.S. plants contaniment is something the USSR didnt use on there R.B.K. plants or any other types they had I don't think.We need these baseload plants they are so much cleaner than Fossil fuel.Wind power is great we now lead the world in it.We have just sold the first 6MW turbine and more to come but they can never be use for baseloading like Nuclear.
no
A breeder still requires fissionable material. We certainly are going the right direction with them, but again - the effort necessary to find or mine or filter or extract that material will ultimately limit them.
Breeders are not pure mass converters, unless something radical has changed since I went to school. You get below thorium or so and you are not going to do much breeding. Now, get it down to the aluminum level or so and then we'll be talking.
Again, I'm not opposed to nuclear energy. Just, I don't care how safe the theoretical design, ultimately, what matters is the fact that the industry has an enormously, rottenly bad tendency to cut corners on safety and to lie throw their teeth about mistakes.
A breeder still requires fissionable material. We certainly are going the right direction with them, but again - the effort necessary to find or mine or filter or extract that material will ultimately limit them.
Breeders are not pure mass converters, unless something radical has changed since I went to school. You get below thorium or so and you are not going to do much breeding. Now, get it down to the aluminum level or so and then we'll be talking.
Again, I'm not opposed to nuclear energy. Just, I don't care how safe the theoretical design, ultimately, what matters is the fact that the industry has an enormously, rottenly bad tendency to cut corners on safety and to lie throw their teeth about mistakes.
A conventional reactor uses only about 1% of the energy contained in the fissionable material (U238-U235). A breeder reactor produces 20% more fuel than it consumes, and uses about 75% of the energy in the fissionable material.
The main objection to breeder reactors is that they produce plutonium, which can be separated and used in nuclear weapons of the type that was used on Nagasaki, Japan, in 1945 (the Hiroshima weapon was a U-235 enriched weapon; such fuel is quite costly to produce through successive levels of enrichment). The plutonium bomb is a far more complex design than the uranium bomb and was the focus of much of the later work at the wartime Manhattan project, as it was envisioned (correctly) that not enough highly enriched uranium would ever be available to produce a stockpile of atomic weapons.
The other objection to breeder reactors is the high radiation encountered during the fuel reprocessing step, which increases the risk of environmental contamination as well as theft of plutonium.
Current estimates of economically recoverable fissionable uranium reserves range from 50 to 85 years at current rates of consumption. Exploitation of all uranium deposits regardless of cost could result in a higher energy yield than all fossil fuel reserves combined, including undersea fossil fuel methane deposits. However as noted at a higher cost nearly unlimited amounts of uranium can be recovered from seawater, and these reserves were not included in the previous comparison with fossil fuel reserves. The current estimated cost of recovering seawater reserves of uranium is about five times that of currently recovered conventionally mined uranium. It remains to be seen if that cost can be reduced, and if the cost of energy will continue to rise and make seawater extraction economically attractive.
The main objection to breeder reactors is that they produce plutonium, which can be separated and used in nuclear weapons of the type that was used on Nagasaki, Japan, in 1945 (the Hiroshima weapon was a U-235 enriched weapon; such fuel is quite costly to produce through successive levels of enrichment). The plutonium bomb is a far more complex design than the uranium bomb and was the focus of much of the later work at the wartime Manhattan project, as it was envisioned (correctly) that not enough highly enriched uranium would ever be available to produce a stockpile of atomic weapons.
The other objection to breeder reactors is the high radiation encountered during the fuel reprocessing step, which increases the risk of environmental contamination as well as theft of plutonium.
Current estimates of economically recoverable fissionable uranium reserves range from 50 to 85 years at current rates of consumption. Exploitation of all uranium deposits regardless of cost could result in a higher energy yield than all fossil fuel reserves combined, including undersea fossil fuel methane deposits. However as noted at a higher cost nearly unlimited amounts of uranium can be recovered from seawater, and these reserves were not included in the previous comparison with fossil fuel reserves. The current estimated cost of recovering seawater reserves of uranium is about five times that of currently recovered conventionally mined uranium. It remains to be seen if that cost can be reduced, and if the cost of energy will continue to rise and make seawater extraction economically attractive.
Rich,
Thank you - I was trying very hard not to say "perpetuum mobile" and not succeeding very well in explaining.
Of course, one aspect of nuclear reactors which the "better living through atomic energy, (pronounce it 'nu-klea-ear')" lobby also conveniently forgets to mention is that nuclear reactors are not easy to ramp up to meet a sudden load increase. In fact, if you want to run these babies as breeders, then you are not going to be running them outside of a very very very very tightly defined range. Or did they go and re-write those pesky natural laws again while I was taking a nap?
But energy demand is not constant. The French (I admit, this was old technology, but hey - they were not thinking breeder and so had more not less flexibility) calculated way back in the dark ages that if all energy needs were to be met with nuclear reactors, it would require seven times the number if a mixture of nuclear and hydro-electric were used. Which is, in fact, exactly how the French manage the relatively high efficiency (that and the Italians and everybody else buying from them whilst pretending they don't use atomic energy, oh, no.
So we can forget about going 100% nuclear from the get go. Unless some brilliant person thinks of an energy storage system which is safe, easy to transport, has more or less unlimited shelf life, is idiot proof and, well, shucks, guess I'm talking about gasoline, again.
Silly me.
Thank you - I was trying very hard not to say "perpetuum mobile" and not succeeding very well in explaining.
Of course, one aspect of nuclear reactors which the "better living through atomic energy, (pronounce it 'nu-klea-ear')" lobby also conveniently forgets to mention is that nuclear reactors are not easy to ramp up to meet a sudden load increase. In fact, if you want to run these babies as breeders, then you are not going to be running them outside of a very very very very tightly defined range. Or did they go and re-write those pesky natural laws again while I was taking a nap?
But energy demand is not constant. The French (I admit, this was old technology, but hey - they were not thinking breeder and so had more not less flexibility) calculated way back in the dark ages that if all energy needs were to be met with nuclear reactors, it would require seven times the number if a mixture of nuclear and hydro-electric were used. Which is, in fact, exactly how the French manage the relatively high efficiency (that and the Italians and everybody else buying from them whilst pretending they don't use atomic energy, oh, no.
So we can forget about going 100% nuclear from the get go. Unless some brilliant person thinks of an energy storage system which is safe, easy to transport, has more or less unlimited shelf life, is idiot proof and, well, shucks, guess I'm talking about gasoline, again.
Silly me.
Chernobyl
Cehrnobyl was a graphite moderated reactor. (A "moderator" slows neutrons down to allow capture by and fissioning of U-235 nuclei).
The former Soviet Union built this plant based on designs stolen from the West during the 1940's, and so was somewhat outdated. It also did not have a containment surrounding it.
In the U.S., we use light water moderated reactors for power production. Graphite "pile" reactors are not utilized and are considered relics of the WWII research era.
It is difficult to compare a Chernoybl type reactor with a U.S. type reactor as they are of different design.
An analogy I often give to students is comparing a Volkswagen "bug" with a Boeing 747.
They both are transportation, they both use hydrocarbon fuel and they both get you from one place to another. But they are somewhat disimilar in nature. They acheive the same result (moving a body (bodies) from place to place and share the same name of "transportation". They operate differently and have different safety ramifications should failure occur.
A graphie pile and a light water reactor power plant, share the same name of "nuclear power" and they both share that electricity exits the plant. However, the means and failure ramifications are different.
That is why the U.S., and most other countries, do not use graphite piles as they are outdated (you might say they are "fossils" technologically) and difficult to control.
I would hazard a guess that most countries, if they did employ a grpahite pile, would care enough about human life to build a containment around it.
Cehrnobyl was a graphite moderated reactor. (A "moderator" slows neutrons down to allow capture by and fissioning of U-235 nuclei).
The former Soviet Union built this plant based on designs stolen from the West during the 1940's, and so was somewhat outdated. It also did not have a containment surrounding it.
In the U.S., we use light water moderated reactors for power production. Graphite "pile" reactors are not utilized and are considered relics of the WWII research era.
It is difficult to compare a Chernoybl type reactor with a U.S. type reactor as they are of different design.
An analogy I often give to students is comparing a Volkswagen "bug" with a Boeing 747.
They both are transportation, they both use hydrocarbon fuel and they both get you from one place to another. But they are somewhat disimilar in nature. They acheive the same result (moving a body (bodies) from place to place and share the same name of "transportation". They operate differently and have different safety ramifications should failure occur.
A graphie pile and a light water reactor power plant, share the same name of "nuclear power" and they both share that electricity exits the plant. However, the means and failure ramifications are different.
That is why the U.S., and most other countries, do not use graphite piles as they are outdated (you might say they are "fossils" technologically) and difficult to control.
I would hazard a guess that most countries, if they did employ a grpahite pile, would care enough about human life to build a containment around it.
The advantage of a graphite moderated reactor begins and ends with that it can use natural uranium with a U-235 content of 0.7%. A boiling water reactor, which uses purified water as the moderator, requires a higher concentration of u-235: 3%. This means extensive plants must be constructed to enrich the uranium to run in a BWR or other water moderated reactor. The Canadians got around this by using heavy water - deuterium - as the moderator, which can use natural uranium as well, without the hazards intrinsic in a graphite moderated design.
I don't think anyone is currently proposing a 100% nuclear powered electric infrastructure. Nor is anyone proposing a 100% breeder reactor nuclear infrastructure. A mix of power sources - which would include fossil as well as renewable, is most likely. Here in the US there's great potential for solar power - we're already making large amount in some of our desert areas using thermo electric maans - the sun's energy is concentrated and used to heat water which in turn drives steam turbines. More of this is on its way. Then there's wind power, of which the US is the world leader at present. Photovoltaic is a great option of individual businesses and residences, but the cost of the silicon panels is still too high. One advantage of solar is that its energy production peaks at about the same time demand peaks - during the hottest parts of the day in climates where AC is needed.
I don't think anyone is currently proposing a 100% nuclear powered electric infrastructure. Nor is anyone proposing a 100% breeder reactor nuclear infrastructure. A mix of power sources - which would include fossil as well as renewable, is most likely. Here in the US there's great potential for solar power - we're already making large amount in some of our desert areas using thermo electric maans - the sun's energy is concentrated and used to heat water which in turn drives steam turbines. More of this is on its way. Then there's wind power, of which the US is the world leader at present. Photovoltaic is a great option of individual businesses and residences, but the cost of the silicon panels is still too high. One advantage of solar is that its energy production peaks at about the same time demand peaks - during the hottest parts of the day in climates where AC is needed.
Yay! Someone sees the light of day!
When 95% of all France's power comes from nuclear without mishap its time to get off the anti-nuclear bandwagon.
There are designs that are very safe.
Keep us posted, we need electricity!
To think we can just keep growing in usage and try to grow a crop to fill the shortfall is crazy.
Do you really want to end up with the same people who control the oil markets today to then control food markets tomorrow??
When 95% of all France's power comes from nuclear without mishap its time to get off the anti-nuclear bandwagon.
There are designs that are very safe.
Keep us posted, we need electricity!
To think we can just keep growing in usage and try to grow a crop to fill the shortfall is crazy.
Do you really want to end up with the same people who control the oil markets today to then control food markets tomorrow??
westyslantfront
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2004
- Messages
- 1,718
I agree with Jon Charles. With this lousy economy, let's do the practical thing and go nuclear.
Light Water Reactors
Light Water Reactors, as well as Breeder reactors, are both run at close to 100% power capacity due to efficiency. That is why nuclear power plants are used primarily for base load power generation.
A controlled ramp up is only required from a unit that has been placed in cold shut down mode (usually done for refueling every six months to a year.)
When online, a modern nuclear reactor responds to power transients (peak load/off-peak load variations) nearly instantly without operator intervention. Its response rate to transients exceeds that of conventional fossil fuel systems.
Rapid response rate to load changes is one of the reasons (as well as the need for only infrequent refueling) make them such as ideal propulsion device for submaries.
It is because of efficiency, as opposed to ability, that reactors are kept near full power to provide baseload power generation needs.Auxilliary power stations (which may be oil, gas or coal) are often used, by local power utilities, to meet customer load variations. However, they are not necessary.
A nuclear plant can act very well as a stand alone power source...but efficiency is increased if it can stay near a full power state.
Because of this, nuclear power stations can team up very well with none conventional power sources such as solar, hydrothermal and wind, as well as conventional fossil sources,
to be used for load leveling generation.
There is no technological reason the U.S. couldn't go 100% nuclear, but in reality we will always have a blend.
In areas of the country where the climatic conditions allow, we will hopefully continue to see growth of auxilliary stations using wind, solar and in some areas of the country, even geothermal sources.
Right now, about a fifth of all of our power in the U.S. is generated through nuclear energy. However, if you look at all carbon free, and particulant free, generation in the U.S., nuclear is producing slightly less than 75% of it.
If we can continue to work on increasing the efficiency and practicality of alternative energy sources, and use them to augment baseload nuclear power generation, we can at least make a dent in the approach of a truly "green" environment by eliminating smog, particulants, greenhouse gases and acid rain.
Light Water Reactors, as well as Breeder reactors, are both run at close to 100% power capacity due to efficiency. That is why nuclear power plants are used primarily for base load power generation.
A controlled ramp up is only required from a unit that has been placed in cold shut down mode (usually done for refueling every six months to a year.)
When online, a modern nuclear reactor responds to power transients (peak load/off-peak load variations) nearly instantly without operator intervention. Its response rate to transients exceeds that of conventional fossil fuel systems.
Rapid response rate to load changes is one of the reasons (as well as the need for only infrequent refueling) make them such as ideal propulsion device for submaries.
It is because of efficiency, as opposed to ability, that reactors are kept near full power to provide baseload power generation needs.Auxilliary power stations (which may be oil, gas or coal) are often used, by local power utilities, to meet customer load variations. However, they are not necessary.
A nuclear plant can act very well as a stand alone power source...but efficiency is increased if it can stay near a full power state.
Because of this, nuclear power stations can team up very well with none conventional power sources such as solar, hydrothermal and wind, as well as conventional fossil sources,
to be used for load leveling generation.
There is no technological reason the U.S. couldn't go 100% nuclear, but in reality we will always have a blend.
In areas of the country where the climatic conditions allow, we will hopefully continue to see growth of auxilliary stations using wind, solar and in some areas of the country, even geothermal sources.
Right now, about a fifth of all of our power in the U.S. is generated through nuclear energy. However, if you look at all carbon free, and particulant free, generation in the U.S., nuclear is producing slightly less than 75% of it.
If we can continue to work on increasing the efficiency and practicality of alternative energy sources, and use them to augment baseload nuclear power generation, we can at least make a dent in the approach of a truly "green" environment by eliminating smog, particulants, greenhouse gases and acid rain.
neptunebob
Well-known member
One question I can't help but ask, Professor Woods, is why does your university have a nuclear engineering program when there are only 2 nuclear plants in Ohio and 85% of Ohio's electricity comes from coal? That's almost as bad as West Virginia with 100%. Pennsylvania has 9 nuclear plants for about 1/3 of our power, I think we may have the highest wattage of all the states and Governor Rendell approved an Areva reactor in central PA. Pittsburgh, with Westinghouse, had the first nuclear power plant in the nation. So why aren't you at, say, Pitt or Penn State? It seems that Ohio likes their coal.
I think
we should be thankful to have such a competence in the area in Ohio. A state with a solid academic and cultural tradition.
I do have a question. Perhaps it's because I'm too D-U-M, dumb to get it, but what end would be served by putting all our eggs in one basket? Isn't that what got us into trouble with fossil fuel?
Imagine we go 100% nuclear and it turns out there is a flaw in, oh, I don't know - the stainless steel we buy from China, no longer possessing the means to produce such large quantities ourselves. Or, it turns out that the programming was done (to increase profit) by a small firm in the Pacific Northwest, run by a Ms. Bates...and every first Thursday of the month this highly-regarded gravity dump, um, dumps cause the controlling system went off-line to reboot and someone forgot to ...
Well, ok, but still - I do think I understand that nuclear power plants are designed to be run at a certain degreee of efficiency and thus are good for the base-line needs. The French (who have lots of atomic plants) and the Austrians (who have lots of mountains and water) have a very good deal going - at night the Austrians use "atomic" electricity to pump water back up behind the hydroelectric dams and during the day, when demand exceeds the baseline in France (the Austrians only need electricity for, well, never mind) they let the water fall back down and the resulting "wet" electricity takes up the short-term surges which would otherwise have required several times more reactors to meet.
Makes sense and works.
But - and yes, I just started a sentence with a conjunction - but the French and the Germans and the UK have seriously well trained personnel and even if the officials and politicians are corrupt, they are also willing to be corrupt and pay attention to safety. I just don't see American politicians having the competence or will to enforce the degree of oversight which the industry requires to run safely.
Again: The US has no means to have un-safe drugs pulled off the market. There is no means to force a company to withdraw tainted food from the market. Any attempts at oversight are always shouted down as "Socialist". We can clean up a Pruho bay or two, sort of and Mother Nature will take care of the rest within a few decades or so. Radioactive contamination is, in human terms, forever. Let's address the safety concerns first, then I'll be happy to talk about the rest.
we should be thankful to have such a competence in the area in Ohio. A state with a solid academic and cultural tradition.
I do have a question. Perhaps it's because I'm too D-U-M, dumb to get it, but what end would be served by putting all our eggs in one basket? Isn't that what got us into trouble with fossil fuel?
Imagine we go 100% nuclear and it turns out there is a flaw in, oh, I don't know - the stainless steel we buy from China, no longer possessing the means to produce such large quantities ourselves. Or, it turns out that the programming was done (to increase profit) by a small firm in the Pacific Northwest, run by a Ms. Bates...and every first Thursday of the month this highly-regarded gravity dump, um, dumps cause the controlling system went off-line to reboot and someone forgot to ...
Well, ok, but still - I do think I understand that nuclear power plants are designed to be run at a certain degreee of efficiency and thus are good for the base-line needs. The French (who have lots of atomic plants) and the Austrians (who have lots of mountains and water) have a very good deal going - at night the Austrians use "atomic" electricity to pump water back up behind the hydroelectric dams and during the day, when demand exceeds the baseline in France (the Austrians only need electricity for, well, never mind) they let the water fall back down and the resulting "wet" electricity takes up the short-term surges which would otherwise have required several times more reactors to meet.
Makes sense and works.
But - and yes, I just started a sentence with a conjunction - but the French and the Germans and the UK have seriously well trained personnel and even if the officials and politicians are corrupt, they are also willing to be corrupt and pay attention to safety. I just don't see American politicians having the competence or will to enforce the degree of oversight which the industry requires to run safely.
Again: The US has no means to have un-safe drugs pulled off the market. There is no means to force a company to withdraw tainted food from the market. Any attempts at oversight are always shouted down as "Socialist". We can clean up a Pruho bay or two, sort of and Mother Nature will take care of the rest within a few decades or so. Radioactive contamination is, in human terms, forever. Let's address the safety concerns first, then I'll be happy to talk about the rest.
I believe it's relative: it's already been established that fossil fuels are destroying our ecosystem. We used to be able to afford becoming paranoid over "what-if" lists, but not any more.
Again, IMO we owe France a large debt of gratitude for showing the world how to proceed with nuclear power.
Again, IMO we owe France a large debt of gratitude for showing the world how to proceed with nuclear power.
dj-gabriele
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,685
Barry: Thank you, for a moment I got confused with the ESBWR, also from GE!
nuclear engineering
Good to hear from you, NeptuneBob. I always think of you when something about Westinghouse comes up. Are you still living in "Westinghouse-land" (PA)?
Wright State, unfortunately does not offer pure Nuclear Engineering. My Department offers Electrical Engineering and Engineering Physics as degrees for entry in nuclear power generation and distribution.
Pumped storage makes a really nice supplement to nuclear (or any power generation system) to store energy during off-peak times. We have a pumped storage unit in Cincinnati.
The basic premise is you use excess electricity made at night, when demand is low. (People are in bed and most industry have ramped down.) to pump water up a hill to a storage reservoir.
In the morning, when people get up, ( turn on the lights, kick on the air conditioner (or heat in the winter), start to cook breakfast and most industry throttles up to full power) you drain the water back down and use it turn turbines to create extra power to meet the immediate peak demand
However, it require some very specific terrain requirements. One needs to build the equivalent of a man-made lake at sufficient elevation above the power plant to provide enough force to efficiently turn the turbines when a peak demand arises.
Not too many generation stations own the land or have the appropriate topography necessary. When they do, it works well and makes a perfect mate for a nuclear power unit for load leveling generation.
GE is making a good product even better with the ESBWR, Gabriel. None constructed yet, but from what I hear, some utilities have ordered Early Site Permits for ESBWR construction.
Good to hear from you, NeptuneBob. I always think of you when something about Westinghouse comes up. Are you still living in "Westinghouse-land" (PA)?
Wright State, unfortunately does not offer pure Nuclear Engineering. My Department offers Electrical Engineering and Engineering Physics as degrees for entry in nuclear power generation and distribution.
Pumped storage makes a really nice supplement to nuclear (or any power generation system) to store energy during off-peak times. We have a pumped storage unit in Cincinnati.
The basic premise is you use excess electricity made at night, when demand is low. (People are in bed and most industry have ramped down.) to pump water up a hill to a storage reservoir.
In the morning, when people get up, ( turn on the lights, kick on the air conditioner (or heat in the winter), start to cook breakfast and most industry throttles up to full power) you drain the water back down and use it turn turbines to create extra power to meet the immediate peak demand
However, it require some very specific terrain requirements. One needs to build the equivalent of a man-made lake at sufficient elevation above the power plant to provide enough force to efficiently turn the turbines when a peak demand arises.
Not too many generation stations own the land or have the appropriate topography necessary. When they do, it works well and makes a perfect mate for a nuclear power unit for load leveling generation.
GE is making a good product even better with the ESBWR, Gabriel. None constructed yet, but from what I hear, some utilities have ordered Early Site Permits for ESBWR construction.
