Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 09/05/2006 7:08:35 AM PDT by thackney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: thackney

How many MW of commercial (not research) pebble-bed plant are expected to be built over the next decade?


2 posted on 09/05/2006 7:15:25 AM PDT by alnitak ("That kid's about as sharp as a pound of wet liver" - Foghorn Leghorn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: thackney

"cooled by helium..."


Maybe that helium reserve is going to come in handy afterall.


3 posted on 09/05/2006 7:25:50 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: thackney
the loony left will never buy it and the democraps have put so many restrictions on nuke reactors in our country that it takes decades to wind through the red tape to build one.
4 posted on 09/05/2006 7:28:36 AM PDT by SouthernBoyupNorth ("For my wings are made of Tungsten, my flesh of glass and steel..........")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: thackney
Here is some info on the reactors:

One of the political drawbacks is that there is no "Containment building". People get worried about leaks and terrorists attacks.

The second is that there is more spent fuel per kw then conventional nuclear plants. Thus the feeling is that would be more waste to bury.

It appears there are critics and supporters all over. There was an accident in Germany about 20 years back using a similar pebble reactor design (pebble got stuck in a cooling line). Here are some more links for those interested:

http://www.nacworldwide.com/Links/Pebble-Bed-Reactor.htm

https://www.pbmr.com/

Also, Texas will be the state with the first new nuclear plants since 1978. These are conventional ones, but it is a start:

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19473

Not a single nuclear power plant has been commissioned in the United States since 1978, but that is about to change as General Electric and Hitachi have announced a joint venture to build two nuclear power plants in Texas.

The Texas project, announced in June with plants scheduled to begin operations in 2014,...

Also noteworthy is the relative lack of NIMBY (Not in My Back Yard) sentiment regarding nuclear power. A June 25 Dallas Morning News house editorial in response to the announcement of the new nuclear power plants in Texas voiced just the opposite opinion.

10 posted on 09/05/2006 7:57:54 AM PDT by bobsunshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: thackney

What is the Toshiba unit they were going to install at Galena?


12 posted on 09/05/2006 8:06:57 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: thackney
"Because they are cooled by helium, the modules can be sited anywhere, not just near bodies of water, and reactors cannot suffer meltdowns."

Being "cooled by helium" has zip to do with the ability to sited near or away from water. ANY nuke reactor can be sited near or away from water---all that changes is the cooling tower design.

13 posted on 09/05/2006 8:07:23 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel-NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: thackney

Whatever happened to that Mitsubishi or Toshiba nuke plant that was a self contained unit using it's own shielding (liquid lead) as the heat transformation mechanism? We need about 100 of those here now (50MW output)


15 posted on 09/05/2006 8:11:50 AM PDT by Centurion2000 (Property tax is feudalism. Income taxes are armed robbery of the minority by the majority.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: thackney
However, multiple units can be connected and operated from one control room, to meet the needs of large or growing communities.

As a former reactor operator, I'm not impressed with that suggestion. One control room means that the control signal wiring from multiple reactors will merge. The Browns Ferry fire of 1975 showed the idiocy of that idea.

For new reactors there should be only one control room per reactor and the number of shared vital systems should be minimized (though obviously isolatable cross connects should be allowed).

18 posted on 09/05/2006 8:42:58 AM PDT by burzum (Despair not! I shall inspire you by charging blindly on!--Minsc, BG2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: thackney

Bump....


19 posted on 09/05/2006 8:45:28 AM PDT by TRY ONE (NUKE the unborn gay whales!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: thackney

I am very pro-nuclear, and any honest GW endorsing environmentalist should be too. The fact that they have NOT rushed headlong into supporting new Nukes and nuke technology pretty much exposes the Greens as Luddites..


20 posted on 09/05/2006 8:46:16 AM PDT by Paradox (The "smarter" the individual, the greater his power of self-delusion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: thackney

A little nukie never hurt anyone.


22 posted on 09/05/2006 9:05:42 AM PDT by Boiler Plate (Mom always said why be difficult, when with just a little more effort you can be impossible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: thackney

PMBR's have been debated for several years and this one in SA is a few years behind schedule. My company (Westinghouse) is heavily involved in it. IMHO, it's too small (in MWe output) to be of very much interest to the US, Europe, Japan and China. It uses gas turbines to extract energy from the hot helium and there is a limit of about 250 -300 MWe on gas turbine output, whereas steam turbines get as high as 1500 MWe. Even if they tried to operate it a a combined cycle mode with gas and steam turbines, the best they could get is about 500 MWe. Given the cost of fuel, waste disposal, and regulatory structures, you get better bang for the buck by going with the current and new light water reactors we have been building for years.

High temperature Ggs reactors are a good technology that could be more useful if they were operated in a combined cycle mode at higher outputs. A reliable demn=onstration in the 800-1000 MWe range would go a long way to getting it accepted in the US, Europe, and Japan. The Ft. St. Vrain experience makes many US utilities wary of HTGR's though.


24 posted on 09/05/2006 9:27:42 AM PDT by nuke rocketeer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: thackney
A couple of introductions to thorium reactors: here and here.
25 posted on 09/05/2006 9:35:19 AM PDT by caveat emptor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: thackney

People don't want nukes.


30 posted on 09/07/2006 6:15:46 AM PDT by DungeonMaster (More and more churches are nada scriptura.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson