The Nuclear Renaissance

[Roll Tide]

More Renaissance stuff from McCain:

he said he would set the country on a course to build 45 new ones by 2030, with a longer-term goal of adding another 55 in the future

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/18/mccain-calls-for-ample-nuclear-reactor-construction/

[withroaj]

FYI...the founder of Greenpeace is now pro-nuclear
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislative_issues/federal_issues/hot_issues_in_congress/energy/Greenpeace-Founder-We-Must-Go-Nuclear.html

While I am happy to hear anyone open up to the glory of nuke power, this shouldn't come from the Greenpeace founder.  He started the organization to protest the deep underground nuclear weapons testing on Amchitka Island in the Aleutian chain off Alaska (predicting nuke induced tsunamis that would wipe out the West Coast --  I don't have to tell you that didn't happen), and obviously with the nuclear is nuclear mentality, this protest bled into nuclear power.  So, while its good that HE supports nuclear power, what about the whack-job organization he started to oppose it? Would they simply call him another nuclear propagandist?

For the nuclear nerd, I would also like to recommend Peter Kuran's "The Atomic Bomb Collection" on DVD, especially "Trinity and Beyond:  The Atomic Bomb Movie." (Narrated by William Shatner).

[withroaj]

Ok, commercial operators laugh at me.  em-log.blogspot.com had a story about a Commodore 64 reactor simulation game called Chernobyl (apparently a PWR simulation even though chernobyl was a whacko BWR plant).  Then this comes up:  http://www.acme-nuclear.com/.  I am stuck on NMCI at this point with home computer problems so I can't download it.  It claims to be a super-detailed BWR simulator.  It sounds really boring as far as spare time computer use goes, but could it be a useful thing to sort of get a grasp on big kids' plant operation?  I am ready to be ridiculed for this question.

[Gamecock]

While I am happy to hear anyone open up to the glory of nuke power, this shouldn't come from the Greenpeace founder.  He started the organization to protest the deep underground nuclear weapons testing on Amchitka Island in the Aleutian chain off Alaska (predicting nuke induced tsunamis that would wipe out the West Coast --  I don't have to tell you that didn't happen), and obviously with the nuclear is nuclear mentality, this protest bled into nuclear power.  So, while its good that HE supports nuclear power, what about the whack-job organization he started to oppose it? Would they simply call him another nuclear propagandist?

I would venture to guess that his coming out in support of nuclear power might cause some of those other nut jobs to reconsider as well.  For what its worth, I had a chance to hear Dr. Moore speak at MIT last year.  He was very good speaker, and I'm glad he's on the right side of this "issue" now.

[Rennhack]

a story about a Commodore 64 reactor simulation game

Finest computer of its time.

[withroaj]

I have to ask: did Dr. Moore come across as a well meaning objector whose message got blown waay out of proportion by his militant, less intelligent followers in the past?

[Preciousblue1965]

Finest computer of its time.

Ah yes...

Text based Games
5 1/2 inch "floppy" disks
Star Trek The Kobyashi Alternative

and last but not least

Load "Game" ,8,1 Run

[JustinHEMI05]

Ah yes...

Text based Games
5 1/2 inch "floppy" disks
Star Trek The Kobyashi Alternative

and last but not least

Load "Game" ,8,1 Run

Speaking of 5.5 inch floppys, I found a bunch laying around the "computer" (I use that word loosely) room at the plant the other day. I was told they were still very important to plant ops. If that doesn't speak volumes of just how outdated we are, I don't know what does LOL

Justin

[arduousartifice]

FYI...the founder of Greenpeace is now pro-nuclear

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislative_issues/federal_issues/hot_issues_in_congress/energy/Greenpeace-Founder-We-Must-Go-Nuclear.html

My favorite part in the article is the following:
"And despite such overhyped media creations as Three Mile Island, not a single life in America has ever been lost due to a nuclear malfunction or accident."

Guess they meant commercial nuclear power.  I counted Wikipedia's list of military nuclear accidents and got five dead, two manhattan project and three at SL1.  There are also a disturbingly large number of Soviet "oops, teh reactor blowed up" incidents on the list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents

[HydroDave63]

There are also a disturbingly large number of Soviet "oops, teh reactor blowed up" incidents on the list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents

Since no utility is looking to construct and license SL-1, any RBMKs or VVERs, your point would be what?

[JustinHEMI05]

Since no utility is looking to construct and license SL-1, any RBMKs or VVERs, your point would be what?

Hmmm... it is tough to see what he is saying. At first, I took it as he was supporting the safety record of US commercial power. But now I don't know after reading your post.

Justin

[arduousartifice]

I was commenting on the lack of fact checking the article's writer showed, or the lack of one clarifying word (commercial) which would have made the statement true, and thus made me laugh when I read it.  The Russian comment was because, if you read the list, there are a disturbingly large number of meltdowns and explosions, and cores dumped in some fjord somewhere in the arctic circle.  The list does not have the RBMK accident on it, that one is on a different, much shorter, list.  I just found it interesting to read, and thought someone here might, too.

[withroaj]

I have another big kids' plant question.  If you can answer it, how is the material condition of those plants?  If you have to be vague, could you compare it to, maybe, NNPP plants of similar ages?  I've seen: 

ex SAM RAYBURN -- keel laid '63
USS ENTERPRISE -- keel laid '58
USS LOUISVILLE -- keel laid '85
NR-1 -- keel laid mid sixties (activated in '69, so I'll call it a '70s plant, giving me the last five decades)
USS VIRGINIA -- keel laid '99

Now that I think about it, the material condition of all the NNPP plants I've seen is pretty good if not amazing for its age(some of the equipment may have a unique "personality," but otherwise...).  Does it work the same in the big kids' world?  You know, nothing looks too shiny and new, but not much looks too old (except, maybe, computer stuff) ?

[JustinHEMI05]

I have another big kids' plant question.  If you can answer it, how is the material condition of those plants?  If you have to be vague, could you compare it to, maybe, NNPP plants of similar ages?  I've seen: 

ex SAM RAYBURN -- keel laid '63
USS ENTERPRISE -- keel laid '58
USS LOUISVILLE -- keel laid '85
NR-1 -- keel laid mid sixties (activated in '69, so I'll call it a '70s plant, giving me the last five decades)
USS VIRGINIA -- keel laid '99

Now that I think about it, the material condition of all the NNPP plants I've seen is pretty good if not amazing for its age(some of the equipment may have a unique "personality," but otherwise...).  Does it work the same in the big kids' world?  You know, nothing looks too shiny and new, but not much looks too old (except, maybe, computer stuff) ?

Why would we have to be vague? We don't pretend that others don't know how to split atoms out here... its all public record. Anyway, peach is OLD, and besides some antiquated control systems, material condition is top notch. See, when you have a big money hungry corporation standing at the reigns of the money machine, they want to keep that money machine pumping out. So, they will spend what it takes to keep that money machine pumping. That isn't to say that they don't worry about budget; e.g. we are trying to push our unit 2 rotor beyond its reasonable life time without some GE required inspections. Corporate's basis for this is that we have new rotors on order and they will be here in few years. However, GE and the NRC said no way jose and our outage just got pushed to 30 days. People are scrambling. Unlike the NNPP, you tend to get the parts you need when you need them.

Justin

[JustinHEMI05]

Why would we have to be vague? We don't pretend that others don't know how to split atoms out here... its all public record. Anyway, peach is OLD, and besides some antiquated control systems, material condition is top notch. See, when you have a big money hungry corporation standing at the reigns of the money machine, they want to keep that money machine pumping out. So, they will spend what it takes to keep that money machine pumping. That isn't to say that they don't worry about budget; e.g. we are trying to push our unit 2 rotor beyond its reasonable life time without some GE required inspections. Corporate's basis for this is that we have new rotors on order and they will be here in few years. However, GE and the NRC said no way jose and our outage just got pushed to 30 days. People are scrambling. Unlike the NNPP, you tend to get the parts you need when you need them.

Justin

Sorry had to quote my own post because it was #666 for me so I needed another.

Another thing, my plant is cleaner than any boat I have ever been on. 
Justin

[withroaj]

Another thing, my plant is cleaner than any boat I have ever been on. 
Justin

That's because you guys have (2) one-hour cleanup periods a day and a 2-6 hour field day on Fridays, right?

[JsonD13]

Some places also have these people called......."janitors".  They actually pay people just to clean and nothing else!  Gosh, I sure wonder how these places manage budgets with all the overhead of paying more people to do the work of one person......


Ok I'm done with my sarcasm.

Jason

[withroaj]

http://blog.heritage.org/2008/07/08/the-economics-of-nuclear-energy/

More hurdles... or are they solutions... or does this article really say nothing? 

EDIT:  This here has the meat and potatoes.  Dry but interesting.  http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/bg2086.cfm

[Gamecock]

http://blog.heritage.org/2008/07/08/the-economics-of-nuclear-energy/

More hurdles... or are they solutions... or does this article really say nothing? 

EDIT:  This here has the meat and potatoes.  Dry but interesting.  http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/bg2086.cfm

Good articles.

I know here in the academic world of MIT, there are many folks, including prominent professors in the Nuclear Engineering Department, that are skeptical of the "Nuclear Renaissance."

The problem is the higher capital costs and lifetime levelized costs associated with nuclear power plants compared to conventional coal plants.  So, as in most things, money drives the solution.

It will likely take government interaction in the form of tax incentives and government loan guarantees to make nuclear attractive.

[withroaj]

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33946.pdf

When we look at the Navy's cost/benifit analysis for nuke cruisers and other lightweight skimmers, it seems that cost/barrel of oil is one of the main factors involved in future nuclear ship justification.  I am pretty sure that most fossil burner plants don't use petroleum (I have no background to say this, I just imagine more coal/gas than oil burners), but doesn't rising energy cost across the board begin to justify nuke power financially?

If the Navy can begin to justify more nuke construction with $76/bbl oil (waaay back in 2006), I'd hope that a plant with a profit machine attached would sound more financially solid than a money draining ship.  I guess initial cost for a company "betting the farm" on nuke power is a bigger factor than it is for a government with a money printing press.

[matthew.b]

When we look at the Navy's cost/benifit analysis for nuke cruisers and other lightweight skimmers, it seems that cost/barrel of oil is one of the main factors involved in future nuclear ship justification.  I am pretty sure that most fossil burner plants don't use petroleum (I have no background to say this, I just imagine more coal/gas than oil burners), but doesn't rising energy cost across the board begin to justify nuke power financially?

About 1% of US electricity comes from burning oil.

Steam plants use almost no oil.  It's "almost" because coal plants use oil to light their fire.  They use #2 to light off, and then grow the flame large using #6 oil ("bunker C").  The #6 has to be heated up to pump and burn, so more #2 is burned to preheat the oil.

Most of the oil is used in remote locations in Diesel generators (Alaska villages and other smaller loads) or gas turbines (Hawaii, Puerto Rico).  Some is burned in large mainland gas turbines during cold spells when natural gas is in short supply, but this is a much smaller fraction.

[withroaj]

Hmm.  So we'll have to wait to run out of coal and gas for nuke to be hip again?

[Roll Tide]

I am pretty sure that most fossil burner plants don't use petroleum

Actually, many South and central Florida power plants also are configured to use either Natural gas OR bunker C. Dual-fuel has advantages in competition from suppliers.

[withroaj]

commercial nuke power will most likely not be hip again with any Americans North of the Mason Dixon line,
or West of the Pecos,...
JMO

A damn shame, if you ask me.  Especially when you take into account the other "energy alternatives" that are all the rage nowadays.  For example, wind energy (which I am all for if it helps me get a taco with a swipe of a debit card anywhere I go in the country), hailed as the "environmentally friendly" alternative to the great satan's nuclear power, takes up a MASSIVE amount of space for very little power output.  Let's use Horse Hollow in Texas as our wind example.  47,000 acres of land produce 735.5 MWe (wikipedia - take it for what it's worth).  Not bad, I guess.

Now let's look at Turkey Point.  3,300 acres of American Crocodile savin' wildlife preserve, producing about 1500 MWe from good ol' Uranium (again wikipedia, but you fellers would be glad to upgrade me, I'm sure).  I know that the individual footprint of a wind turbine is very small, and I have to say again that I am all for wind power in addition to nuclear if it allows me to pay the electricity bill without crying; but it seems that reactor plants take up a lot less space per MW.

[RDTroja]

A damn shame, if you ask me.  Especially when you take into account the other "energy alternatives" that are all the rage nowadays.  For example, wind energy (which I am all for if it helps me get a taco with a swipe of a debit card anywhere I go in the country), hailed as the "environmentally friendly" alternative to the great satan's nuclear power, takes up a MASSIVE amount of space for very little power output.  Let's use Horse Hollow in Texas as our wind example.  47,000 acres of land produce 735.5 MWe (wikipedia - take it for what it's worth).  Not bad, I guess.

Now let's look at Turkey Point.  3,300 acres of American Crocodile savin' wildlife preserve, producing about 1500 MWe from good ol' Uranium (again wikipedia, but you fellers would be glad to upgrade me, I'm sure).  I know that the individual footprint of a wind turbine is very small, and I have to say again that I am all for wind power in addition to nuclear if it allows me to pay the electricity bill without crying; but it seems that reactor plants take up a lot less space per MW.

If you are talking footprint, you have to consider that there are also 3 gas fired plants on the same land at Turkey Point for a total of 3318 MWe. And the majority of American Crocodiles on the planet.