Discussions

[1] 2 3 Next »

This discussion relates to Technology Review's article A Preassembled Nuclear Reactor.

• 
  StupidPeasant
  

  Posts:
  73

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  06/16/2009 08:58 AM

  small is very good

  I envision many small power plants powering a lot of desalination and pumping stations bringing and cleaning fresh water from the oceans, growing more food and trees, freeing rivers to the wild that build sandy beaches; and there I sit on that beach.   Very nice.  With abundant clean power We could save the world and live a very good lives too. 

  Rate this comment:
• 
  dtutelman
  

  Posts:
  84

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  06/16/2009 09:06 AM

  How much will it help?

  I certainly believe that reducing the cost and lead time like this will help. But I'm having trouble understanding how much the impact will be.
  
  I was under the impression that the major impediments to deploying nuclear generation are safety (including NIMBY concerns) and waste disposal. I don't see this proposal addressing either of them.
  
  Can someone enlighten me how important the cost and lead time considerations are in getting nuclear generating plants budgeted, sited & approved, built, and operational?
  
  Thanks.

  Rate this comment:
  • 
    kstauff
    

    Posts:
    129

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    06/16/2009 10:42 AM

    Re: How much will it help?

    There are I believe over 100 nuclear plants operating in the US today.  When was the last time you heard of an accident?  Three Mile Island was actually an example of the safety measures working at the time (30 years ago).  Newer designs are even safer and more efficient, but a now very powerful environmental lobby has until recently driven up the cost of nuclear to the point that coal and oil are far more profitable.
    
    In addition to the typical 5 year construction time of a nuclear plant mentioned in the article, it takes another 7 years on average to push a nuclear plant proposal through the regulatory process.  Of course, if our government cared about lowering the cost of energy, they would increase its supply by streamlining and better managing this process.  It makes you wonder where their priorities are.
    

    Rate this comment:
    • 
      NorthernPiker
      

      Posts:
      13

      Avg Rating:
      

      

      Reply

      06/16/2009 01:09 PM

      Re: How much will it help?

      The 10- to 12-year lead time is the show stopper for nukes. By 2020, the cost of solar and already competitive wind generation will be less than half of today's costs and reasonably priced (several cents per kWh) energy storage  (molten salts, compressed air, batteries, ...) capability should be available.
      

      Rate this comment:
      • 
        kstauff
        

        Posts:
        129

        Avg Rating:
        

        

        Reply

        06/16/2009 01:34 PM

        Re: How much will it help?

        Wind is competitive if you can get it to market.  That's a significant issue.  Further, wind is not dependable at this time for base load power.  Solar suffers from these issues as well, and if it's PV, it's going to cost considerably more and is arguably as dirty as any energy technology when you consider the chemicals required to make PV cells.
        
        I live in Texas, which now produces more energy from wind than any other state.  It's ironic to fly over west Texas and see the turbines towering over old oil pumps, but there they are.  They are probably providing power to Midland-Odessa and El Paso, but transporting that power to the larger metro areas like Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Austin will require hundreds of miles of high-power transmission lines.  That's a multi-billion dollar set of infrastructure that has to be built and maintained.  These costs must be considered when proposing such alternative energy sources.
        
        Meanwhile, the Commanche Peak nuclear plant about 60 miles south of DFW has been pushing out clean power for about 20 years now.  They send the power only one tenth the distance with fewer losses and much lower maintenance.
        
        That said, I'm for a diversity of sources.  If wind or solar is convenient to your region, it makes great sense to deploy it.  If not, then any of the other sources, including wise use of domestic fossil fuels, is a sound choice.

        Rate this comment:
      • 
        Jim Hopf
        

        Posts:
        3

        Avg Rating:
        

        

        Reply

        06/17/2009 02:37 AM

        Re: How much will it help?

        "The 10- to 12-year lead time is the show stopper for nukes"
        
        It's not necessarily a good assumption that the planning/inquiry process will be much shorter for renewables like solar in wind, especially in light of the fact that the affected/required land area is orders of magnitude larger.  This is illsutrated in the article below:
        
        http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/06/16/papers-please-renewable-energys-gridlock-problem/

        Rate this comment:
    • 
      dtutelman
      

      Posts:
      84

      Avg Rating:
      

      

      Reply

      06/16/2009 02:29 PM

      Re: How much will it help?

      kstauff writes:
      There are I believe over 100 nuclear plants operating in the US today. When was the last time you heard of an accident?
      
      Exactly! That is why I emphasized NIMBY as a safety issue -- perceived safety can be as important as actual safety in the proceedings to get approval.
      
      Of course, if our government cared about lowering the cost of energy, they would increase its supply by streamlining and better managing this process. It makes you wonder where their priorities are.
      
      Their priorities are, probably rightly, with keeping their constituents happy. Especially in the short term, where "short" means the same order of magnitude as their term of office.
      
      We live in a democracy, so this is philosophically a good thing, even if populist nucleophobe sentiment is wrong in this case. What we need is better education and better dissemination of the facts to the [understandably skeptical] public. Trying to get the government to act against the public will is not a winning strategy.

      Rate this comment:
      • 
        kstauff
        

        Posts:
        129

        Avg Rating:
        

        

        Reply

        06/16/2009 04:18 PM

        Re: How much will it help?

        "We live in a democracy, so this is philosophically a good thing, even if populist nucleophobe sentiment is wrong in this case. What we need is better education and better dissemination of the facts to the [understandably skeptical] public."
        
        Agreed on education. I'll agree that the public is skeptical; what I find so reprehensible is why they are so skeptical. I believe it's largely because the environmentalist movement successfully demonized the nuclear industry into submission, lobbying for the lengthy process that has essentially stopped it in its tracks. Complicit in this is a media that hyped the dangers of nuclear to scare the public away. This same scare tactic is now being applied with AGW theory, even though the observable facts no longer appear to support it.
        
        Ironically, for their efforts, they got instead coal, oil and gas companies providing the vast majority of energy. I don't specifically have a problem with any of them, but I'd like to see all sources compete on a level playing field; and as it seems you agree, nuclear does not.

        Rate this comment:
      • 
        StupidPeasant
        

        Posts:
        73

        Avg Rating:
        

        

        Reply

        06/16/2009 07:43 PM

        Re: How much will it help?

        Well said.

        Rate this comment:
    • 
      furleron
      

      Posts:
      1

      Reply

      06/21/2009 12:36 PM

      Re: How much will it help?

      From http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html#power
      
      1981
      The Critical Mass Energy Project of Public Citizen, Inc. reported that there were 4,060 mishaps and 140 serious events at nuclear power plants in 1981, up from 3,804 mishaps and 104 serious events the previous year.
      
      11 February 1981
      An Auxiliary Unit Operator, working his first day on the new job without proper training, inadvertently opened a valve which led to the contamination of eight men by 110,000 gallons of radioactive coolant sprayed into the containment building of the Tennessee Valley Authority's Sequoyah I plant in Tennessee.
      
      July 1981
      A flood of low-level radioactive wastewater in the sub-basement at Nine Mile Point's Unit 1 (in New York state) caused approximately 150 55-gallon drums of high-level waste to overturn, some of which released their highly radioactive contents. Some 50,000 gallons of low-level radioactive water were subsequently dumped into Lake Ontario to make room for the cleanup. The discharge was reported to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but the sub-basement contamination was not. A report leaked to the press 8 years later resulted in a study which found that high levels of radiation persisted in the still flooded facility.
      
      1982
      The Critical Mass Energy Project of Public Citizen, Inc. reported that 84,322 power plant workers were exposed to radiation in 1982, up from 82,183 the previous year.
      
      25 January 1982
      A steam generator pipe broke at the Rochester Gas & Electric Company's Ginna plant near Rochester, New York. Fifteen thousand gallons of radioactive coolant spilled onto the plant floor, and small amounts of radioactive steam escaped into the air.
      
      15-16 January 1983
      Nearly 208,000 gallons of water with low-level radioactive contamination was accidentally dumped into the Tennesee River at the Browns Ferry power plant.
      
      25 February 1983
      A catastrophe at the Salem 1 reactor in New Jersey was averted by just 90 seconds when the plant was shut down manually, following the failure of automatic shutdown systems to act properly. The same automatic systems had failed to respond in an incident three days before, and other problems plagued this plant as well, such as a 3,000 gallon leak of radioactive water in June 1981 at the Salem 2 reactor, a 23,000 gallon leak of "mildly" radioactive water (which splashed onto 16 workers) in February 1982, and radioactive gas leaks in March 1981 and September 1982 from Salem 1.
      
      9 December 1986
      A feedwater pipe ruptured at the Surry Unit 2 facility in Virginia, causing 8 workers to be scalded by a release of hot water and steam. Four of the workers later died from their injuries. In addition, water from the sprinkler systems caused a malfunction of the security system, preventing personnel from entering the facility. This was the second time that an incident at the Surry 2 unit resulted in fatal injuries due to scalding [see also 27 July 1972].
      
      1988
      It was reported that there were 2,810 accidents in U.S. commercial nuclear power plants in 1987, down slightly from the 2,836 accidents reported in 1986, according to a report issued by the Critical Mass Energy Project of Public Citizen, Inc.
      
      28 May 1993
      The Nuclear Regulatory Commission released a warning to the operators of 34 nuclear reactors around the country that the instruments used to measure levels of water in the reactor could give false readings during routine shutdowns and fail to detect important leaks. The problem was first bought to light by an engineer at Northeast Utilities in Connecticut who had been harassed for raising safety questions. The flawed instruments at boiling-water reactors designed by General Electric utilize pipes which were prone to being blocked by gas bubbles; a failure to detect falling water levels could have resulted, potentially leading to a meltdown.
      
      15 February 2000
      New York's Indian Point II power plant vented a small amount of radioactive steam when a an aging steam generator ruptured. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission initially reported that no radioactive material was released, but later changed their report to say that there was a leak, but not of a sufficient amount to threaten public safety.
      
      6 March 2002
      Workers discovered a foot-long cavity eaten into the reactor vessel head at the Davis-Besse nuclear plant in Ohio. Borated water had corroded the metal to a 3/16 inch stainless steel liner which held back over 80,000 gallons of highly pressurized radioactive water. In April 2005 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposed fining plant owner First Energy 5.4 million dollars for their failure to uncover the problem sooner (similar problems plaguing other plants were already known within the industry), and also proposed banning System Engineer Andrew Siemaszko from working in the industry for five years due to his falsifying reactor vessel logs. As of this writing the fine and suspension were under appeal.

      Rate this comment:
      • 
        jplwolf
        

        Posts:
        1

        Reply

        06/23/2009 03:05 PM

        Re: How much will it help?

        I'd wager more people have been killed in the US from commercial wind power generation than have been killed in the US by commercial nuclear power generation.  In fact, on a deaths/watt basis I'm quite positive there is no comparison.
        
        "The preponderance of those killed worldwide were Americans; 12 U.S. citizens, and one Canadian. Germany, despite the phenomenal growth of it wind industry since 1990, has one of the lowest mortality rates of the four nations where deaths have occurred, 0.07 deaths per TWh.
        
        The German rate includes the parachutist who, in her first unassisted jump, hit a wind turbine on the island of Fehmarn. In doing so she became the first women killed by wind energy and the first member of the public killed. However, it's important to note that though she was a member of the public, she was not a passerby, such as a person who walks or drives by a wind turbine. Her death is more akin to that of a suicide from a jump off a bridge or tall building. (This is a critical distinction. In the two decades I've tracked this data, no passerby has been injured by wind energy.)
        
        The mortality rate in the USA, where all 13 deaths in North America occurred, is twice that of the international average. As is the mortality rate in the Netherlands.
        
        Data from the USA distorts the mortality rates relative to deaths in construction and deaths in operation & maintenance. The great majority of deaths in the USA can be attributed to construction activities, when installing, moving, or removing wind turbines. Six were killed during operation and maintenance.
        
        At least two of those killed in the USA, all in California, were killed during operations connected with moving wind turbines from one site to another. One of the deaths in Denmark was also related to removing a 55 kW wind turbine in Jutland that was to be replaced with a 500 kW machine.
        
        The high number of deaths in the USA may be connected to the typically frantic nature of year-end, tax-subsidy driven installation booms."
        
        -Vol. 14 No. 4 – Autumn 2001 edition of WindStats Newsletter by Paul Gipe

        Rate this comment:
  • 
    franquellim
    

    Posts:
    13

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    06/16/2009 11:58 AM

    Re: How much will it help?

    The article does not elaborate on this, but the subject of waste is addressed:
    
    "Two other features of the design could also cut down on operating costs. First, each reactor will be housed in a containment structure big enough to store all of the waste generated by the plant during its 60 year life span, eliminating the need for a separate storage facility."

    Rate this comment:
  • 
    Jim Hopf
    

    Posts:
    3

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    06/17/2009 02:13 AM

    Re: How much will it help?

    High (up front) capital costs are, by far, the biggest impediment to the growth of nuclear power.  It is for this reason that nuclear needs either subsidies (mainly loan guarantees) or a significant price on CO2 emissions (and/or hard, declining emissions caps) to compete and grow.
    
    NIMBY is not really an issue.  In fact, the communities around existing plants, where almost all new plants are slated to be built, are begging for new reactors, and even engaging in bidding wars to attract them.  Public support in these communities for new plants is ~80%.  It's also true that overall, ~60% of Americans support new plants.
    
    Safety?  There hasn't been a single public death, or measurable public health impact, over the entire ~40 year history of US nuclear plants.  NRC has accepted all of the new designs as more than safe enough.
    
    Waste?  It is generated in tiny volumes and has always been completely contained (w/o any public deaths or health impacts, ever).  Due to the negligible volume, nuclear waste is very easy to store and contain.  Storing all the waste generated over a plants lifetime, on site, will add less than 0.1 cents/kW-hr to the cost of electricity, and it can easily be so stored for a century or more; plenty of time to find a respository or develop a method for processing and eliminating the fuel.  This really is not a problem (which is why politicians are dragging their feet so much with respect to "solving" it).

    Rate this comment:
  • 
    JAG CNSG
    

    Posts:
    1

    Reply

    06/17/2009 06:10 PM

    Re: How much will it help?

    One of the commenters missed the fact of under reactor storage of 60 years of spent fuel. Of course this is only if Yucca mnt. is not opened, which relies on the current leader to meet the government commitments of the past and get the job done. We need to get the USA off of oil from unfriendly areas of the world and away from coal damaging or environment and health. Both China and Japan are doing that. Why aren't we?

    Rate this comment:
  • 
    durs
    

    Posts:
    40

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    06/17/2009 10:10 PM

    Re: How much will it help?

    Since this design is cheaper, it leaves the Utilities with more money to bribe/intimidate their way around the NIMBY problem. 

    Rate this comment:

[1] 2 3 Next »