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.
Sponger42 -
Thank you for saying what I think should be our future electric power supply, along with natural alternates like isolated solar, wind farms and hydropower including, where appropriate, tidal power. Nuclear fission is the only energy source I know of that can produce more fuel than it uses. Deuterium (CANDU) moderated and cooled reactors are “natural” breeders. The interesting part of breeding more fuel from existing materials is the process eventually fissions all the long half life reactants into short half life fission products the practically reduce the need for geologic storage.
I, as I believe all natural monopolies such as electric power production and distribution, would prefer these units be built, owned and operated by the federal government. This would reduce the interest on the funding to the federal tax rate instead of paying the commercial rate, avoid having to pay dividends and be operated by a dedicated well paid cadre not subject to cuts due to utility financial problems.
The technology is there, the fuel is there, the demand is there so let us start building.
Nuclear energy sure as heck is NOT clean. Strip mining for uranium as well as refining it is extremely dirty and increasingly bad for the environment as uranium becomes harder to find. Just because you see the clean final product does not mean it's actually clean.
They use the wording new plants, but, a good chunk of them are just adding new reactors to existing plants.
Clinton Power Station is proposed to build 1 new reactor
Pebble Beach is proposed to build 2 new reactors
3 Mile Island is proposed for 2 new reactors
Limirick is proposed for 4 new reactors
etc...
I was involved in the dismantling of Connecticut Yankee and it had actually been slated to be upgraded and put back on-line but over it's lifetime there had been many jerry-rigged repairs that had not been properly documented. So the NRC nixed it.
It's a field now. It's just too bad that we lost interest in this form of energy.
Fast-neutron liquid-metal-cooled "breeder reactor" fission plants could end the need for any further Uranium mining and meet ALL our power needs for the next millennium. Such plants have been demonstrated full-scale but never used for commercial power production. Japan is building such plants. The green party in France has forced the shutdown of their only commercial LMCBR. To be fair, the plant had non-dangerous operating problems which made it not economical.
Carter and Clinton are to blame for a lot of this countries refusal to develop new nuclear power plants. We had demonstration plants that worked and now we are falling way behind. Too many people are scared of the word nuclear and get freaked about new plants. I guess Uranium and Thorium in coal is ok for them.
I was involved in the dismantling of Connecticut Yankee and it had actually been slated to be upgraded and put back on-line but over it's lifetime there had been many jerry-rigged repairs that had not been properly documented. So the NRC nixed it.
It's a field now. It's just too bad that we lost interest in this form of energy.
I know what you mean. It is like the Quad Cities plant has been up for upgrades, but it probably wont every happen there due to the fact that the workers there are dealing with more asbestos contamination then radiation.
I think it's safe to say that there won't be 100 new nuclear power plants built in the next 20 years .
And , which energy sources was the good Doctor referring to ?
I agree with you about the "100 new nuclear power plants" not being built. The bureaucracy that surrounds building ONE nuclear plant is astounding. I have performed airspace obstruction analyses for three proposed nuclear sites and just resolving the reconciliation process for flight paths within a certain radius of the proposed site is a nightmare. This of course, does not address any of the other issues that surround nuclear power, such as licensing, the environment, etc. 100 new plants would take many many decades because, unfortunately, the bureaucracy is justified and necessary.
france is a country the size of texas, but it has more nuclear plants the the entire USA
and todays nuclear plants are very safe, and have very little waste as the rods can be reused ( a carter era law prohibits the reuse of rods here in the USA)(we should revoke that law)
also these plants dont need to be supersized, they can be small,,they are 100,000 times cleaner that the coal fired steam plants, and less dangerous
yes build them.
btw...did you know that with all the bailout/stimulas money we could have put a solar electric system on EVERY HOUSE IN AMERICA,,that right there would have reduce the need for electic plants/companies(and the monthly 100-300 dollar electric bill) at least at the residentual level.
I acutually thought the same thing and crunched the numbers and you are exactly right!
If we had wanted to actually impact both the economy and the environment we could have done this with the porkulous bill and actually accomplished something.
but nooooooo instead our gubbermint wants to spend money on stupid stuff.
france is a country the size of texas, but it has more nuclear plants the the entire USA
and todays nuclear plants are very safe, and have very little waste as the rods can be reused ( a carter era law prohibits the reuse of rods here in the USA)(we should revoke that law)
also these plants dont need to be supersized, they can be small,,they are 100,000 times cleaner that the coal fired steam plants, and less dangerous
yes build them.
At only $10 billion each they are cheap! Lol.
And they are so safe the last one had to be shut off for safety reasons.
Shoreham nuclear plant cost 8 billion, or close to $7000 per customer it would have provided power to.
Quote:
btw...did you know that with all the bailout/stimulas money we could have put a solar electric system on EVERY HOUSE IN AMERICA,,that right there would have reduce the need for electic plants/companies(and the monthly 100-300 dollar electric bill) at least at the residentual level.
$6000 gets a complete solar system?
(stimulus divided by 120 million homes)
That would be great.
Lets start building these bad boys-- WOULD LOVE THE WORK!!!!!!!!! Who cares about windmills, hydro or solar-- they are meager in comparison to coal or nuclear-- that would be great a JOB!!!!
I would like to see smaller (100 to 500 MWe) nuclear power plants (Neighborhood Nukes) located closer to the loads they serve. Due to the costs of transmitting power from remote sites, smaller and more localized plants, particularly if they are manufactured in a factory, would cost less then the giant one off plants we are now using. Many smaller plants widely distributed would also provide a much more reliable system than a few mega plants.
One of the factors blocking this from consideration is the egotistical need for Utility executives to build ever larger power plants so they can be “bigger” than the other guys. The old locker room whose is biggest in action. Who says men can’t make emotional decisions.
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.
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.
