[LadyRuby]

Partnership Formed to Build Nuclear Plants

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')fter a gap of three decades in orders for nuclear power plants, two companies interested in building new ones announced Thursday that they had formed a partnership intended to create a new business model for the industry.

...

Constellation named two possible sites for a new reactor: Calvert Cliffs, Md., where it has two reactors, and Nine Mile Point, near Oswego, N.Y., where it has two more. Ground could be broken by 2010, with operation in 2015, the partnership said.

[Starvid]

Excellent.

[EnergySpin]

Good news ... anyone knows what kind of reactors will they be?

[Starvid]

European Pressurized Reactor.

*Feeling patriotic*

[shakespear1]

German's developed the Pebble Bed Reactor with many good refueling and safty features. Hope it is considered and not just lets do what we have done before ideas.

[EnergySpin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', 'E')uropean Pressurized Reactor.

*Feeling patriotic*

[Starvid]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shakespear1', 'G')erman's developed the Pebble Bed Reactor with many good refueling and safty features. Hope it is considered and not just lets do what we have done before ideas.

[shakespear1]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')- solar (Carter kick started the research program on PVs but now the front of research is in Germany).

[EnergySpin]

Since I found PO I have spent some time checking out national renewable energy programs in various countries. I have also read interviews etc. It is amazing what these people had to go through , during the last oil-rich decades. Scrambling for research money, ridiculed etc.
I guess the Evil Empire will be supplying a lot of oil and natural gas to the destroyers lol
End of History my ass

[Ludi]

So now we're up to a whopping four new plants anticipated for the middle of the next decade? And how many need to be built to offset energy loss from oil production decline?

[rkerver]

The original NYTimes article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/16/business/16nuke.html.
French innovations over the past four decades will be incorporated into this project. France gets 77 percent of its electricity from nuclear reactors, the rest being hydroelectric. http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html France has lots of experience with nuclear and their "best design and replicate" approach is well proven and will do much to improve the record here in the US as well.

This is really good news! Why? Because the major utility companies in the US, faced with a very uncertain future with Natural Gas, without the nuclear option will revert to coal, and that is a much, much worse option for the American people. The use of wind, solar and decentralized renewable energy sources should be maximized to the extent possible, but its not enough - do the math. We really want nuclear!

[Starvid]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'S')o now we're up to a whopping four new plants anticipated for the middle of the next decade? And how many need to be built to offset energy loss from oil production decline?

[clv101]

What about the uranium to fuel these new reactors?

Uranium shortage poses threat
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/artic ... 34,00.html

There is not enough uranium on the planet for a large-scale global nuclear industry
http://afr.com/articles/2005/06/23/1119321845502.html
Originally published here (subscription):
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/arti ... hp?id=6897

[Starvid]

Uranium supply is discussed extensively in this thread: http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic11541.html


edit: I did a very simple back-of-the-handkerchief analysis on this some time ago. I'll post it here. It is not complete, it is very basic, but it gives you some idea of the dimensions of the issue.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')inity of nuclear fuel: In theory nuclear fuel is finite. So is solar power, since solar power is the radiation from the big fusion plant in the sky. In practice they are both sustainable.

Let's do some counting. Let's say all primary energy is changed to nuclear. Let's also say energy use increases 50 %. Today nuclear energy is 6-7 % of all primary energy. That means we need a 15-fold increase, and then 50 % on top of that. Today the reserves of nuclear fuel are enough for about 200 years.

200/15=13,33 years

13,33/1,5=8,9 years

Spooky huh? Well, no, because we can get breeder reactors. That means we get 60 times as much energy from the fuel.

8,9*60= 533 years

Ergo= If we get breeders up and working we are set for quite a long time.

But this is not all ( I sound like a TV-Shop guy), you also have thorium! There is 3 times as much thorium in the ground as there is uranium, but I don't know if thorium can be bred. (edit: it can be bred) Devil probably knows. But there is more! There is also insane amounts of uranium solved in the sea! We are not really sure how to get this uranium into the reactors, but when (if) we do, we are just as home free as if we manage to harness fusion.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', ' ')If the US gets as serious with nuclear as we were in the seventies they could build at least 400 reactors in 15 years.

[Starvid]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', ' ')If the US gets as serious with nuclear as we were in the seventies they could build at least 400 reactors in 15 years.

[Bedevere]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', '*') I have set the amount of uranium at current usage at 200 years. This is pretty much a guess, since no one really knows how much uranium there is out there. People usually say 70-200 years.

[gg3]

Well!, some good news for once!

The figures I've seen say natural uranium is good for about 40 years considering demand growth, and with a breeder/recycling infrastructure in place, 250 years. This doesn't count the effect of PO in terms of increased demand for nuclear.

The Pebble Bed does have that little issue of the fuel being difficult to recycle. The Liquid Metal designs don't have that problem, and they're still inherently safe.

Toshiba has specs and intends to produce a 10 to 40 MW unit for remote locations that need a simple & reliable power source, for example Alaskan villages that formerly depended on diesel-powered generators.

Re. build-out:

There are approx. 6 applications for nuclear plants in at NRC right now. Figure 5 years for all the regulatory stuff, plus 5 years to build. Yes, it's a terribly slow start. But as soon as the construction starts, there will be an influx of private capital seeking new projects. And 10 years from now when those plants are online, the floodgates will open and the money will be there. All we need is to streamline the regulatory process by that time, to rule out NIMBYs and stick to sound engineering safety issues (e.g. siting considerations such as geological stability).

Consider this. $239 billion into Iraq thus far. Nuclear and wind each cost about $1 million per megawatt. That's $1 billion for a typical 1 gigawatt reactor. The US government could have **given** the $239 billion away to the utilities and gotten back 239 gigawatts of generating capacity. Figure splitting that 80-20 between nuclear and wind, which is a good mix for a stable grid. Build-times for wind are faster, so within 5 years you have almost 48 GW of wind capacity, and by the end of the decade you get the balance of it, 191 GW or so, of nuclear online.

What's needed is for a candidate for President to say: We will ramp down Iraq ASAP, and put equivalent $$ into the electric power grid, via outright grants, loan guarantees, and other mechanisms to fund nuclear, wind, solar, other renewables, and transmission capacity. Call it the National Security Energy Act, like Eisenhower's National Defense Highways Act (that got us the interstate highway system).

This will immediately get all of the utilities on-side, as well as the construction trades unions, General Electric and other manufacturers of generating infrastructure, Caterpillar and other manufacturers of heavy construction equipment, anyone who's serious about sustainability, and all the small town Chambers of Commerce where those new installations ae likely to be built. Speaking of a landslide election victory.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', '
')There are approx. 6 applications for nuclear plants in at NRC right now.

[EnergySpin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', 'W')ell!, some good news for once!

The figures I've seen say natural uranium is good for about 40 years considering demand growth, and with a breeder/recycling infrastructure in place, 250 years. This doesn't count the effect of PO in terms of increased demand for nuclear.