billvon 3,096 #1 November 3, 2009 After a long glut, power companies are starting to order nuclear power plants again. And while nuclear is not an ideal power source by a long shot, it is one of the cleaner ones overall, and will help to reduce overall pollution and carbon emissions while helping new technologies like electric vehicles advance. A few highlights: Westinghouse has received orders for six new ~1GW reactors for installation at three sites - near Gainesville, FL, in eastern Georgia and in South Carolina. The NRC has received permit requests for a total of 26 new reactors in the past five years. Altogether, 19 new nuclear power plants (some with more than one reactor) are in the planning phases. All these are fairly conventional designs - BWR's or PWR's with basic passive-safety features. The AP1000 is a good example. It's a basic PWR with most of the same features as conventional PWR's, but many of its subsystems are independent; they do not rely on AC power or control room intervention to operate. Thus the reactor does not need a diesel generator to power safety systems during a failure. It's also modular, and is mostly constructed off-site; the components are sized to be shippable by rail or barge, so they can be mass-manufactured and then shipped to the job site. There are a few more exotic designs (PBMR's, Hyperion's reactor etc) but so far there hasn't been much interest. The smaller modular designs are intriguing for places like Antarctic bases, small Alaskan towns etc - places where right now diesel fuel has to be shipped absurd distances. These are also places where the waste heat from the reactor would be a nice side benefit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #2 November 3, 2009 This should have been done long time ago. Unfortunately it takes a while to build them. Storing the used fuel is also still an issue.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #3 November 3, 2009 A few started a couple of years ago. The current permitting process takes 10 to 12 years however"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,096 #4 November 3, 2009 >The current permitting process takes 10 to 12 years however That's dependent on a lot of things, including construction time, inspection time, paperwork processing time etc etc. The AP1000 may help reduce that time greatly, since power companies can get a Combined Construction and Operating License before they start building. Then as long as it is built exactly as it was for the final design certification, many of the regulatory snafus are avoided (like redesigns based on failed inspections.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SimonBones 1 #5 November 3, 2009 QuoteAnd while nuclear is not an ideal power source by a long shot, After working in the nuclear power industry for years I know first hand how many misconceptions there really are in the general public about nuclear power. I agree with George, this should have been done years ago. Not issuing licenses for 30 years over public fear and lack of education has been counterproductive. Nuclear really is the most ideal option available. Many people like to worry about nuclear waste but have never worked with, measured, or counted 'nuclear waste' and really have no idea what it really is. I have. If they did, they would be really surprised as to what the fuss is all about.108 way head down world record!!! http://www.simonbones.com Hit me up on Facebook Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #6 November 3, 2009 QuoteQuoteAnd while nuclear is not an ideal power source by a long shot, After working in the nuclear power industry for years I know first hand how many misconceptions there really are in the general public about nuclear power... ...Many people like to worry about nuclear waste but have never worked with, measured, or counted 'nuclear waste' and really have no idea what it really is. I have. If they did, they would be really surprised as to what the fuss is all about. Is it true that one of the reasons we have so much high-level waste material is because it isn't allowed to be reprccessed into fuel here in the US? This is an honest question. I have heard that the "Uranium Industry" got the reprocessing banned "way back when" to keep demand for their materials up, without worrying about what to do with the used fuel. I have no idea how true this is (or even if reprocessing is a viable way to reduce waste), but it sounds pretty typical of a government/utility monopoly operation."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #7 November 3, 2009 Part of the issue in California is that California law basicly forbids the construction of new nuclear plants. A law provides that no new plants are to be authorized in the atate until a satisfactory waste disposal site is approved. We certainly can use them out here. The problem is that gas fired plants are inexpensive at the outset but subject to price shock. Nukes are expensive and you've gotta put up with protestors and regulatory kickbacks, etc. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #8 November 3, 2009 Quote Nukes are expensive and you've gotta put up with protestors and regulatory kickbacks, etc. I'm thinking it would be a good idea to include parking, restroom, and shelter facilities for the protesters, as well as dedicated walkways for them to picket. You know they are going to be there, so you may as well provide space so they aren't in everyone's way."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SimonBones 1 #9 November 3, 2009 That is a good question. Spent fuel waste isn't really generated very often from a reactor. Once a reactor is fueled, the uranium stays in for a very very long time. An even more interesting question is why do people think of spent fuel when they think of "nuclear waste"? The overwhelming majority of "nuclear waste" is clean enough to eat off of. As a rough estimate from experience, I would say that far less than 10% of volume disposed of as "nuclear waste" actually has any real or significant contamination. You would be shocked to see the amount of day to day things that get disposed of as "nuclear waste" at a nuke plant, yet you can dispose of your smoke detectors in the trash and have them around your house. The poly bags just keep piling up.108 way head down world record!!! http://www.simonbones.com Hit me up on Facebook Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,135 #10 November 3, 2009 QuoteAfter a long glut, power companies are starting to order nuclear power plants again. And while nuclear is not an ideal power source by a long shot, it is one of the cleaner ones overall, and will help to reduce overall pollution and carbon emissions while helping new technologies like electric vehicles advance. A few highlights: Westinghouse has received orders for six new ~1GW reactors for installation at three sites - near Gainesville, FL, in eastern Georgia and in South Carolina. The NRC has received permit requests for a total of 26 new reactors in the past five years. Altogether, 19 new nuclear power plants (some with more than one reactor) are in the planning phases. All these are fairly conventional designs - BWR's or PWR's with basic passive-safety features. The AP1000 is a good example. It's a basic PWR with most of the same features as conventional PWR's, but many of its subsystems are independent; they do not rely on AC power or control room intervention to operate. Thus the reactor does not need a diesel generator to power safety systems during a failure. It's also modular, and is mostly constructed off-site; the components are sized to be shippable by rail or barge, so they can be mass-manufactured and then shipped to the job site. There are a few more exotic designs (PBMR's, Hyperion's reactor etc) but so far there hasn't been much interest. The smaller modular designs are intriguing for places like Antarctic bases, small Alaskan towns etc - places where right now diesel fuel has to be shipped absurd distances. These are also places where the waste heat from the reactor would be a nice side benefit. I was talking two weeks ago to the CEO of the US's largest utility company, and while interested, he said that for the immediate and medium term future natural gas was likely to be so much cheaper that nuclear wasn't likely in the mid west.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billeisele 130 #11 November 3, 2009 the SC reactors are ours, 2 AP 1000's, scheduled completion dates are 2016 and 2018 China is building a few of these and they are 3-4 years ahead of our schedule, we have a sharing agreement where we visit their site to learn everything not to do during construction and they visit us for operator training, its working wellGive one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billeisele 130 #12 November 3, 2009 QuoteThat is a good question. Spent fuel waste isn't really generated very often from a reactor. Once a reactor is fueled, the uranium stays in for a very very long time. ------- in our existing reactor the refueling cycle is every 18 months, 1/2 of the fuel is replaced, fuel rods are stored on-site either in the pool or dry storageGive one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riddler 0 #13 November 3, 2009 QuoteMany people like to worry about nuclear waste but have never worked with, measured, or counted 'nuclear waste' and really have no idea what it really is. I have. If they did, they would be really surprised as to what the fuss is all about. People really need to see side-by-side comparisons between nuclear emissions and fossil-fuel emissions, even the hydro-electric footprint! If they did, they would see that there is no comparison. Nuclear is by far our best option. By far. Yes, we need to exploit solar and wind as well, but nuclear should replace fossil-fuels as the primary source of energy. There are a couple of Japanese firms that are manufacturing small-scale reactors that take a small amount of time to manufacture. Toshiba has a 10,000 KW generator that is already in the process of U.S. approval, and Mitsubishi has a much larger one that is not far behind: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/25/japanese-firms-to-develop_n_333018.html Combining electric power from non-fossil sources, most of it nuclear, and the push toward more electric vehicles may be the only realistic shot we have of getting to clean air in our lifetimes. I'm very excited to see a change coming in energy production and utilization in this country.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #14 November 3, 2009 QuoteQuoteAnd while nuclear is not an ideal power source by a long shot, After working in the nuclear power industry for years I know first hand how many misconceptions there really are in the general public about nuclear power. I agree with George, this should have been done years ago. Not issuing licenses for 30 years over public fear and lack of education has been counterproductive. Nuclear really is the most ideal option available. Many people like to worry about nuclear waste but have never worked with, measured, or counted 'nuclear waste' and really have no idea what it really is. I have. If they did, they would be really surprised as to what the fuss is all about. I eat that shit for breakfast. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #15 November 3, 2009 Quote There are a couple of Japanese firms that are manufacturing small-scale reactors that take a small amount of time to manufacture. I'm sure Japan would like to lend us their portable 'nukular' reactors, we lent them 2 of ours 60 some years ago. Seriously, I'm all about nuclear power, bring it all on. What I can't wait for are the street cars, electric is light and raps up IMMEDIATELY. It'll be fun watching the street kids racing around. It'll also be fun to watch the OPEC. There will still be a huge demand for oil considering airlines and military. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites LongWayToFall 0 #16 November 3, 2009 How is development going on the micro nuclear generators? I remember you mentioning something about them awhile ago, the size of a shipping container I believe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites virgin-burner 1 #17 November 3, 2009 nuclear power pays my bills and funds my skydiving addiction! “Some may never live, but the crazy never die.” -Hunter S. Thompson "No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try." -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airdvr 210 #18 November 3, 2009 Those of us who are old enough to remember the left killing nuke power in the '70's and '80's find it rather amusing that now it will be fashionable.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites virgin-burner 1 #19 November 3, 2009 obviously, i must not oppose it; yet i think, it's way better than burning fosil fuels for simple electric power.. and i dont want our beautiful landscapes have windmills all over the place.. and against popular belief, it's much safer than most people would think!“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.” -Hunter S. Thompson "No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try." -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riddler 0 #20 November 3, 2009 QuoteThose of us who are old enough to remember the left killing nuke power in the '70's and '80's find it rather amusing that now it will be fashionable. Personally, I blame Zoroastrians for killing nuclear power. Unfortunately, there is little merit to either of our claims about what caused it's relegation. This article is a good read: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/nuclear_power.html QuoteBlame is put on the American public, which supposedly became anti-nuclear (although, except for a small vocal minority, this has never been the case). This guy woman blames it on bad marketing people that projected the cost at about 1/10th of final cost. What does that guy lady know, anyway?Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #21 November 3, 2009 .. and i dont want our beautiful landscapes have windmills all over the place.. reply] Too late "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites virgin-burner 1 #22 November 3, 2009 nope, its not - here! “Some may never live, but the crazy never die.” -Hunter S. Thompson "No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try." -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #23 November 3, 2009 Quote nuclear power pays my bills and funds my skydiving addiction! Do you work with Homer Simpson? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #24 November 3, 2009 Do you work with Gay male porn stars? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #25 November 3, 2009 QuoteThose of us who are old enough to remember the left killing nuke power in the '70's and '80's find it rather amusing that now it will be fashionable. I would say more is known now and also you're talking about a different group of people - diff generation. Also, petrolium wasn't such a devil then as it is now, so Nuke becomes a lesser evil. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
riddler 0 #13 November 3, 2009 QuoteMany people like to worry about nuclear waste but have never worked with, measured, or counted 'nuclear waste' and really have no idea what it really is. I have. If they did, they would be really surprised as to what the fuss is all about. People really need to see side-by-side comparisons between nuclear emissions and fossil-fuel emissions, even the hydro-electric footprint! If they did, they would see that there is no comparison. Nuclear is by far our best option. By far. Yes, we need to exploit solar and wind as well, but nuclear should replace fossil-fuels as the primary source of energy. There are a couple of Japanese firms that are manufacturing small-scale reactors that take a small amount of time to manufacture. Toshiba has a 10,000 KW generator that is already in the process of U.S. approval, and Mitsubishi has a much larger one that is not far behind: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/25/japanese-firms-to-develop_n_333018.html Combining electric power from non-fossil sources, most of it nuclear, and the push toward more electric vehicles may be the only realistic shot we have of getting to clean air in our lifetimes. I'm very excited to see a change coming in energy production and utilization in this country.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #14 November 3, 2009 QuoteQuoteAnd while nuclear is not an ideal power source by a long shot, After working in the nuclear power industry for years I know first hand how many misconceptions there really are in the general public about nuclear power. I agree with George, this should have been done years ago. Not issuing licenses for 30 years over public fear and lack of education has been counterproductive. Nuclear really is the most ideal option available. Many people like to worry about nuclear waste but have never worked with, measured, or counted 'nuclear waste' and really have no idea what it really is. I have. If they did, they would be really surprised as to what the fuss is all about. I eat that shit for breakfast. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #15 November 3, 2009 Quote There are a couple of Japanese firms that are manufacturing small-scale reactors that take a small amount of time to manufacture. I'm sure Japan would like to lend us their portable 'nukular' reactors, we lent them 2 of ours 60 some years ago. Seriously, I'm all about nuclear power, bring it all on. What I can't wait for are the street cars, electric is light and raps up IMMEDIATELY. It'll be fun watching the street kids racing around. It'll also be fun to watch the OPEC. There will still be a huge demand for oil considering airlines and military. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LongWayToFall 0 #16 November 3, 2009 How is development going on the micro nuclear generators? I remember you mentioning something about them awhile ago, the size of a shipping container I believe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
virgin-burner 1 #17 November 3, 2009 nuclear power pays my bills and funds my skydiving addiction! “Some may never live, but the crazy never die.” -Hunter S. Thompson "No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try." -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #18 November 3, 2009 Those of us who are old enough to remember the left killing nuke power in the '70's and '80's find it rather amusing that now it will be fashionable.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
virgin-burner 1 #19 November 3, 2009 obviously, i must not oppose it; yet i think, it's way better than burning fosil fuels for simple electric power.. and i dont want our beautiful landscapes have windmills all over the place.. and against popular belief, it's much safer than most people would think!“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.” -Hunter S. Thompson "No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try." -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #20 November 3, 2009 QuoteThose of us who are old enough to remember the left killing nuke power in the '70's and '80's find it rather amusing that now it will be fashionable. Personally, I blame Zoroastrians for killing nuclear power. Unfortunately, there is little merit to either of our claims about what caused it's relegation. This article is a good read: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/nuclear_power.html QuoteBlame is put on the American public, which supposedly became anti-nuclear (although, except for a small vocal minority, this has never been the case). This guy woman blames it on bad marketing people that projected the cost at about 1/10th of final cost. What does that guy lady know, anyway?Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #21 November 3, 2009 .. and i dont want our beautiful landscapes have windmills all over the place.. reply] Too late "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
virgin-burner 1 #22 November 3, 2009 nope, its not - here! “Some may never live, but the crazy never die.” -Hunter S. Thompson "No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try." -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #23 November 3, 2009 Quote nuclear power pays my bills and funds my skydiving addiction! Do you work with Homer Simpson? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #24 November 3, 2009 Do you work with Gay male porn stars? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #25 November 3, 2009 QuoteThose of us who are old enough to remember the left killing nuke power in the '70's and '80's find it rather amusing that now it will be fashionable. I would say more is known now and also you're talking about a different group of people - diff generation. Also, petrolium wasn't such a devil then as it is now, so Nuke becomes a lesser evil. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)