U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-29-2017, 11:43 AM
 
Location: DC
6,510 posts, read 6,430,643 times
Reputation: 3112

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch View Post
Both are utterly intertwined. It is achieving safe operation that drives up the cost of a reactor.

And it is the safety perception that effectively makes it impossible to invent a nuclear plant that would be cost competitive. The perception may not be real but it will still likely prevail. -

I am well aware of the nature of a sub-critical reactor. It was in a nuclear engineering course. I have been an EE some years more than you.
maybe not and I'm real sure I've spent more time operating a nuclear reactor.

The cost overruns on the plants is more from the size and complexity, which is not purely a safety issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-29-2017, 12:48 PM
 
12,580 posts, read 4,754,964 times
Reputation: 5557
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever View Post
maybe not and I'm real sure I've spent more time operating a nuclear reactor.

The cost overruns on the plants is more from the size and complexity, which is not purely a safety issue.
My EE degree was in 63 though I was running a one man shop two years prior to that. You?

If you have any time running a real reactor you beat me. So what?

You are weasel wording your reply. You and I both know a very large portion of the cost of a reactor is safety related. Starts with the containment vessel and goes throughout the plumbing and electrical system. And why is indicated by the outcome in Fukushima. Bad siting screwed it up terribly. And nuclear will never recover.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2017, 01:16 PM
 
Location: DC
6,510 posts, read 6,430,643 times
Reputation: 3112
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch View Post
My EE degree was in 63 though I was running a one man shop two years prior to that. You?

If you have any time running a real reactor you beat me. So what?

You are weasel wording your reply. You and I both know a very large portion of the cost of a reactor is safety related. Starts with the containment vessel and goes throughout the plumbing and electrical system. And why is indicated by the outcome in Fukushima. Bad siting screwed it up terribly. And nuclear will never recover.
Well you beat me by almost a decade on the EE degree. Few on here have done that. I spent some years as a nuclear officer in the Navy and have quite a few hours operating naval nuclear plants. I've also consulted to a number of nuclear plant owners over the last 30+ years.

Safety is certainly a significant cost of a modern civilian nuclear plant, but to lay the colassal cost over runs we see at Olkiluoto, Vogtle and Summer is not really supportable by objective analysis. Safety requirements have not increased on these plants. Fukishima is having very little impact on new reactors. It's not the cost of the material and equipment it's the inability to manage construction projects of this size.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2017, 02:55 PM
 
12,580 posts, read 4,754,964 times
Reputation: 5557
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever View Post
Well you beat me by almost a decade on the EE degree. Few on here have done that. I spent some years as a nuclear officer in the Navy and have quite a few hours operating naval nuclear plants. I've also consulted to a number of nuclear plant owners over the last 30+ years.

Safety is certainly a significant cost of a modern civilian nuclear plant, but to lay the colassal cost over runs we see at Olkiluoto, Vogtle and Summer is not really supportable by objective analysis. Safety requirements have not increased on these plants. Fukishima is having very little impact on new reactors. It's not the cost of the material and equipment it's the inability to manage construction projects of this size.
Ah comeon. The EPR suffers from a number of problems but Virtually all have safety as a driving factor...the whole blooming design is a safety driven thing with all sorts of safety problems creating delays. There is also a scaling problem ala Big Alice that is at work but that was also driven by an attempt to stay competitive while including all the safety stuff.

And I would think the history of the Nuclear Industry has been one of huge delays and huge cost overruns. Looks almost like it is a requirement of a nuclear program.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2017, 10:30 AM
 
Location: DC
6,510 posts, read 6,430,643 times
Reputation: 3112
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch View Post
Ah comeon. The EPR suffers from a number of problems but Virtually all have safety as a driving factor...the whole blooming design is a safety driven thing with all sorts of safety problems creating delays. There is also a scaling problem ala Big Alice that is at work but that was also driven by an attempt to stay competitive while including all the safety stuff.

And I would think the history of the Nuclear Industry has been one of huge delays and huge cost overruns. Looks almost like it is a requirement of a nuclear program.
All the safety systems were designed before construction, and are actually a fairly minor construction issue. The problems have been construction related, not design related.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2017, 02:59 PM
 
12,580 posts, read 4,754,964 times
Reputation: 5557
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever View Post
All the safety systems were designed before construction, and are actually a fairly minor construction issue. The problems have been construction related, not design related.
The problems deal with the compexity of the design in a foot print hardly bigger then prior designs. Four cooling systems packed into the space where prior designs would have had two.

And the projects are suffering the normal first article problems in places compounded by lack of skill in the nuclear building industry. ERP basically ended up with the worst case...four first examples rather than one follwed by three repetitions. .

And a full redesign of the control systems was not driven by construction problems.

That the nuclear industry has historically been unable to execute on time and budget is historical fact. The latest example simply strengthens the accuracy of that fact.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2017, 03:22 PM
 
Location: DC
6,510 posts, read 6,430,643 times
Reputation: 3112
Regardless of the reason at $7-8+ a watt and a ten year lead time, nuclear is not a viable alternative.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2017, 03:30 PM
 
12,580 posts, read 4,754,964 times
Reputation: 5557
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever View Post
Regardless of the reason at $7-8+ a watt and a ten year lead time, nuclear is not a viable alternative.
Of course. In the end result we agree. We appear to disagree on the factors leading to that. But nuclear is simply done for at these prices.

And if someone came up with a reasonably priced alternative nuclear design I would think it will still end up failing due to the perception. Maybe in China.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2017, 04:05 PM
 
Location: Divided Tribes of America
13,559 posts, read 5,463,703 times
Reputation: 5301
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57 View Post
Sounds good to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2017, 04:11 PM
 
Location: Divided Tribes of America
13,559 posts, read 5,463,703 times
Reputation: 5301
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever View Post
I'm an electrical engineer with 35 years experience in the electric utility industry. You apparently have zero understanding of how the grid operates. That is why I didn't bother with your post.
KS Referee claims the exact same credentials, and says the exact opposite of you.

So who should I believe? You or him/her?

It doesn't take an EE to realize that solar and wind resources have very low energy densities and need massive amounts of storage to be practical because of their intermittency. Until you can convince me that
1) low energy density, and
2) intermittency
are not huge barriers to economical wind and solar power, I will side with KS Referee.

Last edited by Freak80; 04-30-2017 at 04:22 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:56 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top