Nuclear - The Next Generation

[RP Instructor]

After the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973, the immediate U.S. response was to become energy self-sufficient by the 21st century. Sadly, 30 years later, the U.S. is not where it should be in terms of energy self-sufficiency. In fact, the world economy and its' governments are directly impacted by the flow of oil from the Middle East. The technology exists NOW to begin the next generation of nuclear-power plants here in the U.S., and we can then reduce the U.S. dependence on Middle East oil to a smidgen. What's your opinion? When do you believe the U.S. will begin construction of the next generation of nuclear-power plants? Will they be built and owned by an energy consortium, built by the U. S. government and managed by a firm like "Duke Energy", "Progress Energy" "Dominion Power" or "Entergy", or completely owned and operated by the US government?

[RP Instructor]

I could only pose one question per poll. So here's "Part Two" of my "not-so-scientific", "just-want-your-viewpoint" opinion poll on the next generation of nuclear power plants. Again, the question: "Will the 'next generation'of nuclear power plants be built and owned by an energy consortium, built by the U. S. government and managed by a firm like "Duke Energy", "Progress Energy" "Dominion Power" or "Entergy", or completely owned and operated by the US government?"

[darkmatter]

I well remember the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973. I had rode with a Friend(?) to the Airport in San Francisco from Mare Island in his car in the evening. As He gets on the plane he hands me two bucks and says " Oh...yeah you'll need to put gas in my car to drive it back to the base". The Gas Stations had that odd and even license plate number for alternate days to fill up and they closed by 8PM ......Guess what time it was? I spent the night sleeping in the car waiting for the gas stations to open at 6 AM.
I've been waiting ever since for a Hydrogen or Electric car that was practical.
Those that don't learn from History, repeat it.

On the other hand, I do have my Star Trek style communicator (cell phone)

[greengoo]

Electric cars are practical, however, they have a major flaw.  When charging, the batteries often overcharge and do one thing...EXPLODE.  Not a timely thing if you are needing to go some place, or if it is in your garage.  Fire, destruction, death.  Not good Mav.

[RP Instructor]

"The Gas Stations had that odd and even license plate number for alternate days to fill up and they closed by 8PM ......Guess what time it was? I spent the night sleeping in the car waiting for the gas stations to open at 6 AM."

I too, recall the odd/even requirement for gasoline purchases. I was a teenager then, and I recall getting-up before dawn, taking my Mom's car up to the gas station on the corner from our house, and waiting in line with everyone else in the neighborhood, until the gas station opened. I lived in New York City then, and I recall where violence broke-out when gas stations closed with cars still in line, when folks where suspected of "jumping the line", and when the station exhausted its gasoline supply with people still in line. Remember too, when you were only allowed to purchase a fixed dollar amount? The technology exists now with hybrid cars (gas/electric - in fact, Honda sells a hybrid)so we can significantly reduce our dependence on Middle East oil if we wanted to.

[SloGlo]

best way around the odd/even license plate thingie was to use rental cars..... they could fill anytime at any gas station.  buying a "beater" with the opposite plate helped too.  just a couple of hints in case we go there again.  

[RP Instructor]

Of those that responded, the majority believe there will be a "next generation of nuclear power", it's re-birth will be within the next 10-20 years, and be built and operated by a consortium of energy companies. This stands-to-reason, since even with re-licensing, most existing nuclear plants will begin decommissioning within the next 20 years. As far as the cost of new plants, the burden would have to be shared. Utilities would be un-likely to take on the burden alone.
So now for the next series of questions:
1.) Where will they be built (keeping in mind public opinion of "not-in-my-backyard")?
2.) What about the nuclear waste issue (also a NIMBY issue)? Where will the next Barnwell or Hanford be located?
 3.)What about spent fuel re-processing? Will the U.S. pursue that option?
4.) If the US pursues spent fuel pool re-processing, will it be a private venture, or a government project (i.e. DOE)?

[SloGlo]

ohcay, i'll bite   [smiley=cheeburga.gif]
1)they'll be built in hilly/mountaineous areas that are unappealing to agriculture interests
2)no more barnwell/hanford repositories as such.  incineration will become the vogue
3)spent fuel will be reprocessed, most likely shipped to france
4)see #3

[MercTech]

I would say the next generation of nuclear power plants began in the 1990s.  The problem is that it didn't get to a nuclear backwater like the United States.

One former co-worker is now the RPM for a new plant starting up in Malaysia.  The third world countries are reaping the benefits of all the lessons learned from the U.S., Germany, and France.

But, it just isn't "politically correct" to build a new plant in the "good ol' US of A".

I've been following the flack in the old hometown newspaper, Jackson Mississippi, about the proposed building of a new unit at Grand Gulf.

Are there any techs at Grand Gulf that care to give some insight as to what the workers for Entergy are hearing?

Steven Jerkins
HPT/PNNL

[MercTech]

You needed one more selection on your question:

A consortium of nuclear utilities will try to build a new plant and be sued to bankruptcy by clueless environmental activitsts.

Cynical ain't I
<grin>

[RP Instructor]

"I would say the next generation of nuclear power plants began in the 1990s.  The problem is that it didn't get to a nuclear backwater like the United States".

Good point. Europe and Asia are taking advantage now, of the benefits of nuclear power, whereas the US continues to depend on fossil fuels. What precipitated the creation of this thread, is that I believe it's time we communicate to the Arab oil-producing nations, that we no longer need nor want their oil. September 11th was a wake-up call, that the US has no friends in the Arab world, and let's not kid ourselves into believing that we do. So I say: "stop trading with them". We are financing terrorism against the US by buying their oil - that's the bottomline. Use the technology that exists now, to free ourselves of our dependence on Middle East oil.

[RP Instructor]

"A consortium of nuclear utilities will try to build a new plant and be sued to bankruptcy by clueless environmental activitsts"

Oh I'm sure the environmentalists (read, actors)will come out of the woodwork, and they'll drive-up in their Cadillac Escalades, Lincoln Navigators, Ford Excursions, Toyota Sequoias, etc. However, the energy issue will eventually become an energy crisis, like it was in 1973, and in order to ensure national security, the court cases will be dismissed and the plants will be built.

[alphadude]

they will only be built because we are to lazy to turn off those flood lights, and to stop buying crap like fry daddys. (and big industry will lobby them to be built. $$)

a faulty energy policy should not be reason for a forced solution.  the energy-mainly electric- crisis is due to over solicitaton by utility market managers.. All utilities know this and gladly accept the profits that we rain down on them.  The NE power outage was not a lack of power problem it was profit taking-put off replacing old out of date infrastructure to keep stock prices high- the calif crisis was the result of free wheeling power brokerage.. BE ACTIVE, Read the facts, know why you pay tremendous fuel adjustments when fuel cost is the lowest in years- coal is low, uranium is almost free... can u say daisy chain?

[RP Instructor]

"they will only be built because we are to lazy to turn off those flood lights, and to stop buying crap like fry daddys. (and big industry will lobby them to be built)."

True. Conversation would help alleviate our demand for electricity. However, considering every desktop has a PC, our reliance on the computer overall, and that every home and business is run on electricity, the demand for electricity will grow despite conservation.
My point is, the US needs to significantly reduce its' dependence on fossil fuels by moving people into mass transportation (i.e. trains and trolleys), reduce dependence on the personal automobile, and not risk its' economy to the volatility of the Middle East, nor finance terrorism against its' own interests worldwide. Nuclear can help achieve that goal.

"a faulty energy policy should not be reason for a forced solution.  the energy-mainly electric- crisis is due to over solicitaton by utility market managers.. All utilities know this and gladly accept the profits that we rain down on them.  The NE power outage was not a lack of power problem it was profit taking-put off replacing old out of date infrastructure to keep stock prices high- the calif crisis was the result of free wheeling power brokerage.. BE ACTIVE, Read the facts, know why you pay tremendous fuel adjustments when fuel cost is the lowest in years- coal is low, uranium is almost free... "

You appear to have issues with the workings of capitalism. Unless the US plans on throwing itself back to the 19th century, heating homes with wood, lighting them with lanterns, curing food with salt, and riding in horse-and-buggy, the increased demand for electricity will force the US to seek a solution, and (rightfully) consumers will pay for that solution. (For the umpteenth-time) Nuclear needs to be part of that solution. As stated in the companion thread, Europe and Asia have made nuclear power an intricate part of their energy policy - the US needs to as well.

[SloGlo]

can u say daisy chain?

the only thing wrong with a daisy chain is when yer not invited.

[SloGlo]

[i
My point is, the US needs to significantly reduce its' dependence on fossil fuels by moving people into mass transportation (i.e. trains and trolleys), reduce dependence on the personal automobile, and not risk its' economy to the volatility of the Middle East, nor finance terrorism against its' own interests worldwide.
Unless the US plans on throwing itself back to the 19th century, heating homes with wood, lighting them with lanterns, curing food with salt, and riding in horse-and-buggy, the increased demand for electricity will force the US to seek a solution,

re: the 1st part... yawn...that's been said like, forever, ya know?  they were screaming that in the 70s.  yawn.  quit wasting time trying to turn around an entire culture, we can't even fill high occupancy vehicle lanes during rush hour with compact cars, let alone suv vehicles.  yinze'd go further trying to convert government owned vehicles to natural/propane gas fuel.
re: the 2nd part...oh quit scaring me.  how about convincing the power generation groups that they are screwing over the country by utilizing natural gas for electric production instead of letting the little guys use it to heat their houses 'n cook their food?
is electric demand on the rise? duh!  been like that for, like what, 120 years?  c'mon!

[RP Instructor]

It didn't take long for this thread to "fly-off-course" (which appears to happen quite often here at "nukeworker").
Let's get back on track, shall we? The question is whether or not nuclear will experience a re-birth (see the companion thread), and if so, who'll finance it?

[SloGlo]

when demand gets high enough, the banks will finance the construction of additional generating stations, be they nuclear or whatever.

[MercTech]

Iraq, Iran, China, Maylaysia, and Taiwan have more modern power reactors than we do.

Kind of scary.

[mikemckinley]

heard there is $1B budgeted in bushes energy policy budget.  it is for design and build of htgr.  saw that on cnn.  would like more details.  would like to review the design.  anyone who has worked fsv knows what a sweet potential helium coolant is.  
i reccomend that they design it horizantal instead of vertical.  big imposing monolith is not the way to go.

[SloGlo]

mikemckinley....pulled this offa 'sloglo's nuke news' fro 9/04/03.  maybe it'll help in your search.  btw, that thread is for anyone to post nuke news, 'k?

http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/FuelCellToday/IndustryInformation/IndustryInformationExternal/NewsDisplayArticle/0,1602,3352,00.html

[alphadude]

well the money plan for such big ticket items is a bit difficult to determine in the macro scale because of new models being exercised on a weekly basis.  the rebirth will be a slo process and perhaps we are already in the early stages and not too aware of it.  remember most plants have had extensions way beyond 40 year life so that would qualify as part of "rebirth"- fuel % is being raised so that fits in, MOX is near so that fits, as for breaking ground on a brand new facility- dont expect it in the next 5 to 10 years.  We would need an economic situation in the US akin to the time when plants were being built. - Right now the cash flow is not there for that to happen.  There is no new baby boom-so demand will not peak like the 60s/70s, mostly the rebirth will be refurbish the infrastructure and that has already began.

and besides when u have oil men as president and vice president gooo figure!!!

[SloGlo]

soon's we can get the market to commit to the ready purchase of the power the plants will be built.  one of the mostest major differences between the 60/70s 'n today's economy is that there is not the same industrial base demand for power.  until we establish industry again in this country, we will strangle ourselves with limited power from economicaly driven power generation.  in udder words, iffen ya don't demand it, ya won't get it, commonly known as 3 year old 101.

[Phurst]

There is a couple pretty good articles in Nuc News Sept. 2003 about need and next generation. MIT did a study, not just by nuc engineers, but including Political Science and Economic dudes and they say the world need a thousand new reactors by 2050. The say in the US 90% of the carbon emissions come from coal while only 52% of the electricity. Fossil fuels will provide the world with 40% of the greenhouse emissions by 2020. chilling!  

[littlebittime]

There is a couple pretty good articles in Nuc News Sept. 2003 about need and next generation. MIT did a study, not just by nuc engineers, but including Political Science and Economic dudes and they say the world need a thousand new reactors by 2050. The say in the US 90% of the carbon emissions come from coal while only 52% of the electricity. Fossil fuels will provide the world with 40% of the greenhouse emissions by 2020. chilling!  

I believe it... go to china - any major/medium or large city - take a deep breath... then blow your nose!  it's truely amazing! (and nasty)