General Discussion

joshcryer

(62,534 posts)

98. We have something like 5 years to start pumping out one Gen III+ nuclear plant a year...

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 01:56 AM

Dec 2011

...to equal the retiring / decommissioning plants. The plants that currently exist and the fuel type that is currently being manufactured is for LWRs. The US has no immediate plans to build reactors that breed or burn up fuel, and I'm saying that's because there's more interest in the LWR fuel cycle.

It's simply too big of a risk to invest the several tens of billions it would take to design and certify one of those plants (IFR or LFTR). And yes, the nuclear industry isn't doing it, and I think fuel processing does play into it, because this is a dramatic shift in how you do nuclear. You take the waste that is sitting around in a nuclear plants holding area and you burn it up. Or you take thorium stockpiles that are sitting covered in dirt somewhere and burn it up.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

216 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Nuclear renaissance? US OKs new reactor design [View all] Playinghardball Dec 2011 OP

More stupidity, MadHound Dec 2011 #1

The millions of tons of coal being burned speaks to the need. TheWraith Dec 2011 #3

Time and again, you try to paint this as a binary decision, coal or nulcear, MadHound Dec 2011 #6

Solar and wind still produce barely 2.5% of our electricity. TheWraith Dec 2011 #7

Yes, you are correct, that is the current situation. MadHound Dec 2011 #8

That is bullshit written by people that know nothing about power grids badtoworse Dec 2011 #93

Ever hear of the DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)? Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #94

Are you serious? AtheistCrusader Dec 2011 #97

Speaking of that quakerboy Dec 2011 #100

You might want to check your facts... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #133

I was told quakerboy Dec 2011 #176

I know there are times where there's so much wind power coming out of the Columbia River area XemaSab Dec 2011 #177

Well, we closed our last coal plant in Washington State. AtheistCrusader Dec 2011 #140

Good!> Survivoreesta Dec 2011 #109

No, we should not reject nuclear outright. Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #134

Actually, our most important goal sulphurdunn Dec 2011 #154

Texas has 10,000+ MW of wind generation right now, and that will double in five years mbperrin Dec 2011 #102

do you know how much natural gas spinning reserve nuclear needs for backup? kristopher Dec 2011 #104

Apparently you don't either. FBaggins Dec 2011 #108

260MW of on-line natural gas back-up required for each reactor. That's a lot. kristopher Dec 2011 #124

It would be... if it were true. FBaggins Dec 2011 #136

Hearsay? kristopher Dec 2011 #159

How long can the Presidio, TX battery protect the city? FBaggins Dec 2011 #106

It's good for 8 hours for the entire town. These batteries are not for momentary fluctuations. mbperrin Dec 2011 #139

Then you were stretching a great deal to call it a "city" FBaggins Dec 2011 #141

Okay, now you are being purposefully obtuse and insulting as well. 4,000 people are nothing to you? mbperrin Dec 2011 #144

No... you're changing the subject. FBaggins Dec 2011 #148

good job fascisthunter Dec 2011 #186

Bologna quakerboy Dec 2011 #105

How about scaling down the "grid," RoccoR5955 Dec 2011 #112

What about spinning reserve, bad power days etc? ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #121

The more varied inputs we bring to the grid... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #149

More varied inputs is not compatible with scaling down the grid jeff47 Dec 2011 #153

There are projects in the works to use RoccoR5955 Dec 2011 #161

You need to familiarize yourself with the way "distributed generation" works. kristopher Dec 2011 #163

Shrinking the grid is not my goal... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #169

Gee they have an 11 MW Li-ion battery at a wind farm in Hawaii jpak Dec 2011 #189

I sure hope you stick around for a long time. Your reply is just plain good! ThomWV Dec 2011 #119

You have the lesson of load following exactly backwards kristopher Dec 2011 #129

Same thing you do if a concentrating solar, geothermal, hydro source goes down. AtheistCrusader Dec 2011 #143

Really? kristopher Dec 2011 #162

The Grand Coulee dam rips out about 7,000mw AtheistCrusader Dec 2011 #185

Nonsense - Denmark produces 20% of electricity from wind jpak Dec 2011 #188

Denmark is a peninsula in the Baltic Sea. tabasco Dec 2011 #205

The steppes of northern China is a *hugh* wind source - China is the world leader in wind power jpak Dec 2011 #209

Actually... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #92

New Large Scale Generation could be accomplished with RoccoR5955 Dec 2011 #110

and it can NEVER be more than 2.5% jpak Dec 2011 #187

Thank you--this fake dichotomy is a continuous disinformation talking point diane in sf Dec 2011 #29

I'm hoping not to just shut down coal DissedByBush Dec 2011 #90

do you understand how dangerous nuclear is? fascisthunter Dec 2011 #123

They. stonecutter357 Dec 2011 #156

well, it goes to sow how little a conscience some really have fascisthunter Dec 2011 #167

ME stonecutter357 Dec 2011 #196

Can renewables really do the job in the northeast with the large dense cities, long winters, etc? ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #9

Umm, no MadHound Dec 2011 #17

Great Idea But, Throckmorton Dec 2011 #19

Well then, I guess we'll have to use the transmission lines that we already have MadHound Dec 2011 #22

Sorry... There isn't. FBaggins Dec 2011 #49

Really? You sure about that? MadHound Dec 2011 #55

Well then. NutmegYankee Dec 2011 #62

Absolutely sure. Yes. FBaggins Dec 2011 #63

Why does the NE need wind from the midwest? kristopher Dec 2011 #67

The wind doesn't blow every day in the NE NutmegYankee Dec 2011 #73

Yes it does. kristopher Dec 2011 #75

You're funny. NutmegYankee Dec 2011 #76

No, no, let's get to the bottom of this and see who is correct. kristopher Dec 2011 #77

Do your research - wind power potential in the NE is very good - look up the maps jpak Dec 2011 #191

Vast majority of it is offshore with markedly hight costs ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #201

Sorry - the current goal is 2000 MW of on-shore wind capacity by 2020 jpak Dec 2011 #203

That is theoritical, lets see annual yield ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #204

No - that's nameplate capacity (no "theory" involved) jpak Dec 2011 #208

Capacity != actual production ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #210

That was factored into the goal of 2000 MW - we know better up here! jpak Dec 2011 #211

You still do not understand or cannot answer the question being asked ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #212

I know all about it - sorry jpak Dec 2011 #213

Others from Maine disagree with you ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #214

They do not know what they are talking about jpak Dec 2011 #215

And wind in Maine isn't working for shit Maine_Nurse Dec 2011 #80

The problem with offshore is cost ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #116

Nonsense - electricity costs in N. ME are declining because of the Mars Hill wind farm jpak Dec 2011 #192

What about the offshore winds? n/t RoccoR5955 Dec 2011 #113

Costs are much higher for maritime installations than shore based ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #115

Yeah, BUT RoccoR5955 Dec 2011 #178

Or running a modern fossil fueled plant of some sort ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #180

Question is, will they take into account ALL costs RoccoR5955 Dec 2011 #195

Some I think would be ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #197

And why should the cost of energy... RoccoR5955 Dec 2011 #206

Because the orginization running the plant is not considered accountable for them ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #207

It doesn't. FBaggins Dec 2011 #78

No, that is the scenario you selected to make a false argument kristopher Dec 2011 #79

WHy do you even need an online forum if you make up both sides of the debate in your own head? FBaggins Dec 2011 #82

Dude, the thread is right above us!! kristopher Dec 2011 #88

Do you own stocks in nuclear? fascisthunter Dec 2011 #168

Put them down the freeway corridors--those are already ugly. diane in sf Dec 2011 #30

Bury them... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #95

No, HVDC does not "take to being buried" well jeff47 Dec 2011 #150

It is being used a lot. kristopher Dec 2011 #164

Not clear that mid west will have the renewable energy to spare. ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #23

Three states, South Dakota, Kansas and Texas, have enough wind power to power the entire country, MadHound Dec 2011 #25

Wipe out the dinosaur energy firms along with private health insurers, they all are obsolete diane in sf Dec 2011 #31

Hey Texans? For the good of the country, we're going to put 175,000 wind-powered generators in your cherokeeprogressive Dec 2011 #48

Umm, did I say anything resembling the words you put in my mouth MadHound Dec 2011 #51

You didn't say those words, no. cherokeeprogressive Dec 2011 #56

Gee, ever thought that the tech has gotten beyond wind farms. MadHound Dec 2011 #59

If the technology is so dated XemaSab Dec 2011 #61

I'm sorry... are you saying that you think windbelts are ready for prime time? FBaggins Dec 2011 #64

We've recently discovered... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #96

Actually, Texas has more wind generated electricity than any other state. It will double in 7 years. mbperrin Dec 2011 #103

So in your world the grid is made from superconductors? jeff47 Dec 2011 #126

HVDC and UHVDC... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #170

They've got wind, wave, and solar options in the NE. diane in sf Dec 2011 #21

The cost of such retrofits often exceed the value of the structures ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #32

Sorry, but watt for watt, nuclear is the most expensive form of power generation going. MadHound Dec 2011 #35

I am not supporting nuclear, just point out that the central plants of some sort will be with us ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #42

Solar shingles fail? MadHound Dec 2011 #44

There are cost, building code, and interconnection issues with them ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #101

You can't power NYC from the midwest jeff47 Dec 2011 #127

Hey, no fair using science ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #132

HVDC Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #145

Still can't get enough power for the 8M people in NYC from the midwest jeff47 Dec 2011 #146

Who rode the straw horse into the room? Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #172

There was a whole posse on them ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #200

You have no idea what you are talking about. NutmegYankee Dec 2011 #33

Living in a hundred and fifty plus year old house myself, MadHound Dec 2011 #37

How do you heat and what does it cost in the winter? NutmegYankee Dec 2011 #47

I Maine they are using ceramic electric heaters that use cheap off-peak electricity to heat homes jpak Dec 2011 #194

Those old houses need to be retrofitted--and should be--that's a lot of employment opportunities. diane in sf Dec 2011 #40

You have to be joking. NutmegYankee Dec 2011 #52

Here's realistic... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #65

Loans? Heat pumps? NutmegYankee Dec 2011 #70

How much are you "dumb Swamp Yankees" paying... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #86

Not that much. jeff47 Dec 2011 #152

One person's "not that much"... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #166

Efficiency Maine retrofits older homes in Maine with effective insulation and reduces energy costs jpak Dec 2011 #193

Sometimes ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #199

No - I live there all the time jpak Dec 2011 #202

Yes they can. With tidal, and small scale hydro. n/t RoccoR5955 Dec 2011 #111

Small-scale hydro can't make enough power, and the tides don't always flow jeff47 Dec 2011 #128

Keep doubting. RoccoR5955 Dec 2011 #160

Yes it can - offshore wind potential alone = 4 TW off the East Coast jpak Dec 2011 #190

I agree, take 150 Billion from DoD budget and invest in fusion reactor technology! snooper2 Dec 2011 #151

The AP1000s are actually pretty impressive hardware. TheWraith Dec 2011 #2

They are clearly a major step forward in nuclear generators ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #5

Are these the "pebble bed" reactors I read about not long ago? n/t cherokeeprogressive Dec 2011 #50

Nope FBaggins Dec 2011 #53

Please tell me they dont store spent fuel rods above the plant. nm rhett o rick Dec 2011 #4

I thought that was done in Japan due to the lack of land ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #11

I dont think the design was specifically made for Japan. I believe there are a few rhett o rick Dec 2011 #14

As I understand it placing the storage ponds on top of the reactor vessel was a local choice ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #18

I may be wrong but I believe it is intrinsic. nm rhett o rick Dec 2011 #45

It is - for that type of reactor. FBaggins Dec 2011 #58

I am going by memory but dont agree. In the design in Japan the pools were above the reactor. rhett o rick Dec 2011 #72

Both wrong. Sorry. FBaggins Dec 2011 #81

Dont be sorry. I was wrong. The spent fuel is stored below the top of the RV. nm rhett o rick Dec 2011 #85

That is the scariest Shit i've seen. stonecutter357 Dec 2011 #198

No, that's where the water sits for the passive cooling system. nt Confusious Dec 2011 #12

What could go wrong? n/t leeroysphitz Dec 2011 #13

LOL diane in sf Dec 2011 #41

Nothing... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #66

The ecomics still don't support investing in nuclear, even with an improved design. diane in sf Dec 2011 #10

Do realize that SF can never be enegry self supporting? ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #15

All cities are part of their region. My flat is a lot more energy efficent than a typical suburban diane in sf Dec 2011 #27

At a macro level, cities plunder the surrounding areas for resources ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #36

Solar panels don't require mining? XemaSab Dec 2011 #20

Solar panels don't require mining for their continuous energy production, diane in sf Dec 2011 #24

Tell that to the people in China, dying by the thousands in "cancer villages..." Systematic Chaos Dec 2011 #28

Tell that to the Indians dying from uranium mining and the people in Appalachian coal country-- diane in sf Dec 2011 #34

Well then let's bring ALL the solar panel manufacture back here. Makes perfect sense. Systematic Chaos Dec 2011 #39

Ask the people in Chernobyl and Japan how they're coping with their "clean" invisble radioactive diane in sf Dec 2011 #43

It's better to put in newer, safer reactors Turbineguy Dec 2011 #16

We will indeed need central plants for the forseeable future ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #38

It would make sense to install newer, safer reactors... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #68

What could go wrong? FiveGoodMen Dec 2011 #26

Secretary Chu Statement on AP1000 Reactor Design Certification OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #46

all that denial and the subsequent delay makes centralized solutions more 'imperative' certainot Dec 2011 #91

Or less imperative... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #99

but they've done pretty good at preventing those solutions on large scale - when it comes to certainot Dec 2011 #107

To my knowledge, this is generally true OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #114

Solar in the southwest, particuarly California has not been fast tracked ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #117

2011 Renewable Energy Priority Projects OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #118

Bureaucratic Nonsense ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #120

I believe that one level of “Bureaucratic Nonsense” has been streamlined OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #122

The metrics do not support that conclusion ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #131

Really!? OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #137

Well, "You can be sure, if it is Westinghouse." eom Purveyor Dec 2011 #54

The AP1000 is dated, archiaic technology that the nuclear industry wants... joshcryer Dec 2011 #57

Fuel is a very small proportion of the cost of nuclear power. FBaggins Dec 2011 #60

Yes, the cleanup when they break is probably the biggest expense--the Japanese accident diane in sf Dec 2011 #69

Of course it isn't. FBaggins Dec 2011 #83

As plants retire which part of the industry suffers the most? joshcryer Dec 2011 #71

How much MOX do you think is out there? FBaggins Dec 2011 #84

We have something like 5 years to start pumping out one Gen III+ nuclear plant a year... joshcryer Dec 2011 #98

What clude go worng? Octafish Dec 2011 #74

Did you notice what the Obama "insider" is saying? Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #87

one of the benefits of all the global warming denial is demanding centralized high end solutions certainot Dec 2011 #89

It can never happen here. stonecutter357 Dec 2011 #125

I own stock in uranium miners Eliminator Dec 2011 #130

So it's all about whether you make a dollar? XemaSab Dec 2011 #147

As opposed to oil and coal? Eliminator Dec 2011 #157

FWIW, I'm fine with nuclear being a stepping stone to 100% renewables XemaSab Dec 2011 #158

Sure you do Eliminator Dec 2011 #165

nuclear would be great if it wasn't for a fucking nuclear catastrophe every 20 years or so... scentopine Dec 2011 #135

Yay! a2liberal Dec 2011 #138

If you're an engineer/scientist type... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #173

It is the one that is the most viable in the long term a2liberal Dec 2011 #175

30 year engineer here, family of engineers and scientists, power generation, power plant design scentopine Dec 2011 #181

I don't appreciate the implication that I'm an industry shill (n/t) a2liberal Dec 2011 #183

"irrational fear-mongering" "nuclear weapons fear-mongering" "ridiculous fears" scentopine Dec 2011 #184

Regardless of whether you think I'm wrong a2liberal Dec 2011 #216

Bull... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #182

Westinghouse? itsrobert Dec 2011 #142

I'm torn about the issue of nuclear power Politicub Dec 2011 #155

You're missing the big solution... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #171

Agree completely in re: to political will being the greatest barrier Politicub Dec 2011 #174

That's a great article RoccoR5955 Dec 2011 #179