Posted on 01/12/2005 5:33:11 AM PST by Brilliant
President Bush says the nation needs advanced nuclear-power plants, calling them a clean, "renewable" energy source for the future...
New Mexico Republican Pete V. Domenici... said he welcomed Mr. Bush's remarks. "Without any question," he said, the long-term electricity-generating alternative to the nation's dwindling supplies of natural gas "will have to be nuclear power. If America is afraid of it, the world will use" advanced nuclear technology. Sen. Domenici is expected to offer an energy bill that will include financial incentives for the first new nuclear-power plants.
Nuclear power now supplies 20% of the nation's electricity, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, while coal-fired plants provide 51% and natural-gas-fed plants generate 17%. Unlike other major sources of electrical energy, nuclear-power plants don't pollute the air or produce carbon dioxide, which is thought to cause global warming. But nuclear wastes must be disposed of in a way that protects people from radiation.
Mr. Rowe said the industry needs Congress and the White House to help remove the legal and regulatory obstacles to using Yucca Mountain, the federal repository for nuclear wastes in Nevada. The industry is also looking for government help in building and licensing prototypes for a new generation of nuclear plants with safety systems that would be relatively immune to accidents... For the first prototype, the engineering and design work alone are expected to cost $520 million...
Environmental groups were quick to challenge the president's use of the word "renewable," which they have reserved for wind and solar-energy projects. "Most people's idea of renewable energy is not anything that produces toxic wastes that you have to keep isolated for hundreds of thousands of years," said Carl Pope, president of the Sierra Club...
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
The EU has relied heavily on nuclear power for decades. This is one case where I agree with the Europeans.
For Years now we have been tiptoeing around Nuclear power, Its time we used more of it, Hopefully we can develop ways to get rid of the waste in a better fashion.
You mean the enviro-wackos are opposed to something which would help prevent global warming? (Shocked!!)
Certainly far better than those days of "Hillary-Care" starting the tone for the Clinton administration.
Wasn't there a recent discovery of a process that significantly reduces the half-life of nuclear waste?
I believe the "Green" party in Germany forced through a phaseout of nuclear power last year.
Insanity, given the fossil fuel demands that are increasing in the developing world, imo.
Looks like they will have a hard time meeting their Kyoto obligations.
'Better'? Perhaps you could describe the 'less than better' in the current disposal protocol. I haven't ever tiptoed around nuclear power and only retired from it as a career when my facility was BRACed.
Half-life reduction can come only by changing the nuclear composition which takes energy comparable to the original nuclear re-arrangement. It has been done.
It's called a pebble bed reactor ... now get to work.
"Renewable" was a poor choice of words.
What he really meant was the nuclear energy is not going to be used up, as oil and coal are.
Actually, the fuel is used up, it's just that there's so much of it available that we aren't going to run out.
Good for him.
The day after his inauguration, the President needs to PILE IT ON with about seven or eight major initiatives that the media and Dems (synonymous, I know) would have to try to combat at once...the legislative version of the Clintoons famous document dumps that would bury the feckless Ken Starr.
Germany: Nuclear Power Argument
THE LONG-LIFE CORE ENCAPSULATED NUCLEAR HEAT SOURCE GENERATION IV REACTOR
E. Greenspan (University of California)
The Encapsulated Nuclear Heat Source (ENHS) is a small innovative reactor suitable for use in developing countries. The reference design is a 50 MWe lead-bismuth eutectic (Pb-Bi) cooled fast reactor. It is designed to meet the requirements of Generation IV reactors including sustainable energy supply, low waste, high level of safety and reliability, competitive busbar cost of electricity and acceptable risk to capital. Unique features of the ENHS include 20 years of operation without refueling; no fuel handling in the host country; no pumps and valves; excess reactivity can not exceed $1; very small probability of core damage accidents; autonomous operation and load-following; very long plant life. In addition it offers a close match between demand and supply, large tolerance to human errors, public acceptance via demonstration of superb safety, lack of need for offsite response, large tolerance to human errors and superb proliferation resistance.
Two types of long-life cores have been designed for the ENHS; one fueled with Pu-U and the other with enriched uranium. The fuel material is metallic alloy with 10 weight % Zr, clad with HT-9 and cooled with molten Pb-Bi eutectic or with Pb. Both core types are of a uniform composition and do not use either internal or external blankets. The long life is achieved by designing the core to have a nearly constant keff with burnup. In case of the Pu-U fuel this is achieved by designing the core to have a breeding ratio slightly above unity – just to compensate for the negative reactivity effect of the fission products. In case of the enriched uranium cores the constant keff is achieved by designing the core to have a conversion ratio of approximately 0.7; at this conversion ratio the reactivity effect of the Pu produced just compensates for the reactivity worth of the consumed 235U. The design domain has been defined for nearly constant keff cores that can deliver 125 to 250 MWth when operating with an average linear heat rate of 60 w/cm, 80 w/cm or 120 w/cm. The core geometry design variables considered were core height and lattice pitch-to-diameter ratio. The fuel was assumed to be 1cm in diameter and to have a 0.1cm thick clad. Radiation damage to the clad was found to limit the average linear heat-rate of a core that is to operate for 20 effective full power years to 60 w/cm. The corresponding peak burnup of these cores is approximately 100 GWD/tHM. Selected neutronic and thermal-hydraulic characteristics of the nearly zero burnup reactivity swing Pb-cooled cores will be presented along with the feasibility of designing these cores to have the coolant flow with 100% natural circulation. ...
We've simply got to go to nuke and get out of the loop with environmental nazis controlling the fate of the nation.
As "Carl Pope, president of the Sierra Club" well knows, wind-farms are being challenged by NIMBYs such as Teddy Kennedy (re: the proposal in Martha's Vineyard) and by PETA (re: the condors being sliced and diced by wind-farms in California).
There is no hope for energy independence with these whacko lefties strangling the nation of logical solutions.
About Time!
Pebble bed reactors are too small. The baseload replacement plants needed will have to be in the 1000-1400 MW range. A 200 MW pebble bed demonstrator has not been completed yet, though i have been hearing that it is just around the corner (since 1998).
I read your Germany links.
There's no mention of any concrete plan to replace nuclear power with any alternative source.
Was it reprocessing?
A breeder reactor can create more fuel out of otherwise non-usable isotopes (e.g. converting U238 to Pu239), but that merely expands the finite supply of fuel (the original supply usable isotopes plus the supply of isotopes that can be so converted).
Of course, some commie former President who continues to be a pain in the ass, ruled them out. Time to undo that.
I did say "insanity".
One of them had a comment about 200K addition windmills would be necessary, and they are complaining about the
current number.
But hey, their non-concrete energy policy "cornerstone" is support for renewable solar and wind power.
Yes; I can be knocked over with a feather after finding out about this.
Well from what I am reading the pebble beds are modular so you just add modules until you get your required power supply.
How about those lead cooled ones ? I've read that the Japanese had a 50MW portable lead-cooled nuclear reactor that was only 300 tons. Have you seen anything on that lately?
Toxic chemicals must be disposed of in a way that protects people from contamination. So what? It's not like the problem has no solution. Bury the stuff under Yucca Mountain and be done with it.
Agreed. Nuclear power does not increase the amount of radioactive stuff. It just moves it around. We took it out of the ground in the first place. Let's put it back now.
If you retired from Nuclear power I assume you know more about it than I. This country hasnt built a new nuclear facility in years. When I mention tiptoeing around nuclear I was referring to the fact that as I see it Nuclear power is a great resource that leaves us independent of foreing powers and we have avoided it because of envirowhacko's who stand against it but dont mind using the electricity it produces.. Now I dont know your thoughts but mine are that hopefully scientists can find a way that we can use the waste over or reduce the waste or find a way to make it less dangerous.
Again you probably know more about this than I do , but I am sure in the future ways will be found so we may reap the benefits without the dangers.
Right now my thoughts are that placing this stuff inside a mountain is a hell of a lot better than leaving it sitting around the site in 55 gallon drums.
There are also other designs where the fuel rods expand when heated, incresing the radii between the fuel nuclei to a break-even point so that the rods can't melt down.
That one sounds really good, especially considering we can get tons of plutonium cheap from Russia 9which we are already paying for to secure).
I always wondered why the short half-life stuff couldn't be allowed to cook off, and the result re-mixed with earth and packed back where it came from. The net environmental effect should be about zero.
Actually, it may be stretching it to say (or assume) that it does not increase the amount of radioactive stuff. For example, they use water to cool these reactors, and the water invariably ends up with its own radiactive qualities when they're done. On the other hand, water comes in contact with radioactive materials in nature as well, and presumably also acquires radioactive qualities in doing so. I'm not persuaded that there is any significant increase in the total amount of radioactive stuff just because we are using these fissionable materials to generate usable energy.
The primary problem is that we've dug it out of the ground and put it in our living room. So now let's just put it back.
As an interesting aside, I read a few months ago about a "natural nuclear reactor" they have found in South Africa. Apparently, there was a time in the distant past when certain fissionable materials happened to come together by pure chance. The result was a natural nuclear reactor which remained operative for thousands (millions?) of years before it finally exhausted itself. Of course, the radioactive byproducts of that reaction are still identifiable, and the subject of intense study by academics.
There was no containment facility at all, but the Greenies don't seem to be the least bit concerned about it.
Its funny how liberals and enviro wackos align against a cheap and dependable as well as environmentally responsible source of energy. These are the same people who blame this country for being involved in the Middle East only for oil. Yet they draw they line at the only realistic means America has of attaining independence from imported oil. As usual, they want to have it both ways.
Light water reactors are the best option as of right now. The new generation designs like GE's ABWR and Westinghouse's AP-600 and AP-1000 are good starts. GE has already built at least one ABWR in either Japan or Taiwan.
An alternative design not really pushed and actively opposed by Rickover was the HTGR that General Atomic pushed. Only one (Ft. St. Vrain) was built and it had numerous problems staying on line, until PS Colorado pulled the plug. If development of this type of plant had been continued, it had the potentail to match the Carnot cycle efficiencies of the gas-fired combined cycle plants.
It's also the only practical means of eliminating the green house gases that cause global warming. All of the other practical means of producing electricity involve fossil fuels, which as we know, causes green house gases.
You just can't produce enough electricity with dams, solar and windmills, and every time we try to build that kind of capacity, they object to that as well.
What about reprocessing and reuse? If the stuff is so hot that it is hazardous, obviously there is energy to be used. Can someone SMART clue me in on the physics involved, in layman's terms?
Reprocessing is the way to go. Right now all the high-level waste we have to dispose of, going back to the Manhattan Project, would cover a football field to a depth of a little over 10 feet.
Take the first step, which is simply partitioning the material, taking out the unused (unburned) 238U and 235 U, plus the 239Pu bred during the fuel cycle. That reduces the volume to that which would cover a tennis court to a depth of a few feet. Use the unburned 235U and 239Pu in some kind of mixed oxide thermal reactor. Use the 238U as a blanket for breeders. Recover the energy value of those materials in that manner.
Take the next step. Partition that material to take out those things that can be used for other purposes, like 137Cs for commercial irradiators, 99Tc for medical uses, etc. Plus partition the actinides, which you're going to have to send through some kind of actinide recycle anyway to reduce repository heat load. That step reduces the volume to that of a commercial refrigerator. Dispose of that in some kind of deep-burial repository. Yucca mountain's capacity would be sufficient for time scales on the order of geological epochs if we went this route.
Does that mean WPPS (whoops) will be un-mothballed?
An ABWR built on a previously-approved site in this country would be a very nice evolutionary step. Not revolutionary, like the Gen 4 systems, but a nice path forward. I have heard rumors to the effect that a generation company somewhere in the South is looking at this option, but I'll believe it when I see it.
It cannot be made enough 'less dangerous' to satisfy Luddites or know-nothings. Waste will always be hazardous. A place to begin understanding is in 'specific activity' or even just some technical education. The 'mountain' is built. Unfortunately the anti-politicians have reduced it to a figurative molehill for shielding purposes. Fuel waste is not left sitting around in 55 gallon drums though they are fine for LSA waste.
"Like Seabrook"? Why not 'like the Navy's PWRs' with their entirely sucessful history? Your choice of analogy indicates either some lack of familiarity or an agenda.
I'm smart. +4 sd. How smart are you? Do we have enough language in common to communicate?
The physics isn't easy. That's the beginning of why Rickover was hated. He hired and promoted smart nerds. when there weren't enough to hire then he trained 'em. I was a fine enough turd to pass the filter.
Entergy, at the Grand Gulf site. This was going to be a 2 unit site, but the second unit was cancelled, so it was evaluated for 2 units.
Yeah, that's it. Water kept getting into the core and messing up the graphite moderator, etc. I know they had only about a 10% capacity factor when PSC pulled the plug. I hope GA keeps plugging away. I really liked the concept of the combined cycle HTGR....closed loop gas turbine with the GT exhaust still hot enough to run through a steam generator. One college prof (26 yrs ago) I had worked for GA and told me that they also were planning on a MHD (Magneto HydroDynamic) generator in the gas loop, if anyone could have ever made one work reliably.
Nope, they just put the last mothballed unbuilt WPPS unit on the scrap/spare parts market a couple of years ago.
| Country | Nuclear as Percentage of Gross Electricity Generation (rounded) | Gross Electricity Generation (million kWh) |
Gross Capacity (MW) |
|---|---|---|---|
| France | 78% | 368,188 | 59,020 |
| Belgium | 60% | 41,927 | 5,485 |
| Sweden | 43% | 61,395 | 9,912 |
| Spain | 36% | 56,060 | 7,020 |
| S. Korea | 36% | 58,138 | 7,616 |
| Ukraine | 33% | 75,243 | 12,818 |
| Germany | 29% | 153,476 | 22,657 |
| Japan | 28% | 249,256 | 38,541 |
| United Kingdom | 28% | 89,353 | 11,894 |
| United States | 19% | 610,365 | 99,061 |
| Canada | 18% | 94,823 | 15,437 |
| Russia | 12% | 119,186 | 21,242 |
| World Totals* | 18% | 2,167,515 | 340,911 |
| * World totals include countries not individually listed. Source: Energy Studies Yearbook: 1993 (New York: United Nations, 1995). |
|||
But we could do a lot in this country with evolutionary LWR technology, reprocessing with partitioning and actinide recycle to reduce waste volume, and some kind of pathway to a viable breeder basis. For the latter, I like the closed fuel cycle concept of the IFR they were working on at Idaho before Clinton gave it the axe (Hillary no-like nukes).
It's not that difficult to understand once you come to the realization that their actual goal is to take down our country.
Actually, if you build fast breeders, they will actually produce fuel...
The conventional LWR running today produces fuel. During late fuel cycle, about 40% of the power comes from PU-239 that was "bred" from U-238. Fast breeders do it better and generate at least as much fuel as they burn. This is accomplished since fast fission produces more neutrons per fission that thermal LWR's.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.