backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 75 comment(s) - last by Major HooHaa.. on Sep 27 at 11:35 AM
New nuclear power plants will integrate several industrial processes into one plant

One of the most controversial types of energy production in the world is nuclear power. Advocates like to point out that the power produced by the process introduces much less emissions into the atmosphere than conventional coal power plants produce. Those who oppose nuclear power point out that the process produces radioactive waste and a major meltdown, however unlikely, could occur.

The Department of Energy (DOE) has announced today that it has up to $40 million in funding available to support the design and planning of a Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP). The new nuclear plants would use high-temperature, gas-cooled reactor technologies to integrate multiple industrial applications into one plant. These NGNP would make electricity like current nuclear plants do, plus they would integrate other industrial processes into the same plant. Other industrial processes could include refining petroleum and producing hydrogen.

"Support for new developments in nuclear technologies will be critical to meeting our energy, climate and security goals for years to come," said U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu. "Next Generation Nuclear Plants hold the promise of safe, cost-effective, zero-emissions energy for major U.S. industries that are some of the largest energy consumers in the country. By integrating multiple industrial processes, this next generation technology will offset imported fossil fuels, reduce pollution, and create tens of thousands of quality jobs in industries across America."

According to statistics, about 40% of the greenhouse gas produced in America comes from industrial processes in high-energy consuming sectors. The NGNP plants would allow heat or steam generated by the nuclear reactors to drive turbines; these turbines could in turn serve other purposes like manufacturing plastic components from raw materials. The same technology could also be used to produce ammonia for fertilizer.

The $40 million funding announcement made today will support phase one activities including the development of cost-shared conceptual designs, cost and schedule estimates and a business plan for integrating Phase 2 activities. The data gathered in Phase 1 will be used to determine if Phase 2 should continue. Applications for receiving funds from the $40 million are due by November 16 and the DOE expects to make two awards in February 2010 with each supporting a unique reactor concept.

A demonstration plant is expected to be produced by 2021.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Wow...
By bradmshannon on 9/22/2009 11:15:22 AM , Rating: 3
We haven't had a nuclear plant built since what...the 70s? So engineers have had 40+yrs to perfect the nuclear plant designs and now that the funding is there, it's gonna take over 10yrs to build a 'concept' plant?

Anyone else think that's rediculous?




RE: Wow...
By randomposter on 9/22/2009 11:17:07 AM , Rating: 1
Tip: the when you see underlined red text in an input box in your browser, stop and take a closer look at the underlined word.


RE: Wow...
By bradmshannon on 9/22/2009 11:21:21 AM , Rating: 4
Tip: Don't assume that everyone is using a browser with spellcheck.


RE: Wow...
By Yawgm0th on 9/22/2009 12:04:25 PM , Rating: 2
Tip: Use a browser with spellcheck or get an addin/plugin that checks spelling. It makes you look "rediculous" on the Tubes if you don't have one.


RE: Wow...
By Iaiken on 9/22/2009 2:03:56 PM , Rating: 1
Tip: Nobody cares. :D


RE: Wow...
By Tsuwamono on 9/22/2009 10:13:44 PM , Rating: 2
Or learn to spell?


RE: Wow...
By Major HooHaa on 9/27/2009 11:35:31 AM , Rating: 2
I am dyslexic, so I copy and paste my messages into a word processing programme and use the spellchecker there, before I post the message.

Sometime if I'm in a hurry, I don't bother with the spellchecking :-)

A friend of my is also dyslexic, when we send messages back and forth they are riddled with atrocious spelling mistakes, but neither of us minds and we can both easily decipher what the other persons saying.

On the subject of the new reactors, if there is no perceived, pressing need to change a technology, then we are quite happy to stick with the current technology. Now that people are worried about the sheer impact that the ever growing, global human population is having on the planet. Then they think it's time to make changes.

I recently read online about an experimental hybrid fission/fusion reactor that would produce only a very small percentage of nuclear waste, when compared to the amount that today’s normal fission reactors produce.


RE: Wow...
By Samus on 9/22/09, Rating: -1
RE: Wow...
By ClownPuncher on 9/22/2009 7:13:03 PM , Rating: 2
I wish I could rate this comment down. 50 years of nuclear fuel? What crackerjack box did you read that from?


RE: Wow...
By PrinceGaz on 9/22/2009 8:42:57 PM , Rating: 2
At current rates of consumption, there is enough known uranium ore reserves to last for far longer than that. And then there are all the nuclear warheads which can be decommisioned which in the right sort of reactor can be used to provide a gradual energy output rather than letting it out in a big bang (the radioactive material has already been refined so the hard work has been done).

There's enough readily-available fissionable heavy elements to keep us going until we finally manage to make nuclear-fusion power generation a reality, regardless of whether that is five or fifty years away. If we haven't managed to contain a sustained fusion reaction within fifty years, then running out of fissionable material will be the last of our worries (because we will have made bugger all progress, and also still have plenty of fissionable after refining ore to mine).


RE: Wow...
By ArcliteHawaii on 9/22/2009 10:57:52 PM , Rating: 2
I believe the 50 year number is for non breeder reactors. Of course we should be using a breeder cycle like France if we're going to base our electrical generation on nuclear reactors. We also should be developing liquid salt reactors to use thorium, since there's a lot more thorium on the planet than uranium.


RE: Wow...
By randomly on 9/23/2009 9:22:26 AM , Rating: 2
The 50 year number is just bogus. Period. Even for a once through fuel cycle. There are hundreds of years worth of U-235 at a minimum.

France's breeder reactor program failed with the shut down of the Super Phoenix reactor. A combination of technical issues and political pressures.

Molten salt reactors absolutely deserve development. However the current Nuclear business has little incentive to pursue molten salt reactors because their business model and infrastructure are built around light water reactors and the Uranium fuel cycle. Most of the ongoing profits for nuclear reactor companies come from selling the fuel assemblies needed for refueling the reactors. There are no fuel assemblies in molten salt reactors. There is also no uranium market in thorium reactors. Business interest forces are not aligned with molten salt reactors so don't expect much effort to be made in that direction even though they very successfully address most of the nuclear power problems like fuel availability, safety, nuclear waste, proliferation, and cost.


RE: Wow...
By Samus on 9/23/2009 6:00:59 PM , Rating: 2
You're all blithering idiots. You wish you could rate me down lower because you didn't care to even research yourselves? What, you think common nuclear fuel (Uranium 235) grows on tree's and we have an infinite supply?

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/fuel-supply.htm...

http://www.potentialenergyuk.com/?p=47

http://world-nuclear.org/sym/2005/pdf/Maeda.pdf

So basically if the trend of nuclear growth continues (China built 2 new reactors this year alone) all inventory and 'known' mines containing rock that harbors U235 will be completely exhausted by 2055 as studied and verified by EU-contracted WNO. Since the study is almost 5 years old already and only considered China's growth up until about 2002, and no new nuclear sources have been identified since, it's inherently safe to say we have somewhat less U235 than the study predicted.

Of course, as one DT reader pointed out, this doesn't consider breeder reactors or emerging spent-fuel technologies that can use whats better known as 'toxic waste' as fuel.

And lastly, if you don't support Geothermal technology over nuclear technology for generating electricity on land, you're a complete moron. It's essentially the same output, efficiency, and reliability with NO waste and virtually unlimited resources (at least until we cool the core of the planet) and some studies indicate it could actually slow down subterranian activity reducing tsunami's, earthquakes and release of hazzardous gasses from below the ocean floor.


RE: Wow...
By MrBlastman on 9/22/2009 11:26:56 AM , Rating: 5
Absolutely it is rediculous. This is a stall tactic being pushed by the Obama administration. Of course it is going to take 10 years, 10 more years to appease the environmentalist wackos who think that a net-negative nuclear reaction is deadly to America and our beautiful countrysides.

Just six months ago I was out at a shooting range in rural Georgia which was literally a couple of miles away from a nuclear power plant. I drove by it actually on the way there. According to some of these nutcases, the plant should have turned me greener than iridium sights and caused my bullets to turn into molten slag as they left my barrel creating micro-nuke explosions. There is a poster in this column that I believe falls into that category with his comment about oil and hydrogen next to a plant--please.

The session went fine and I unloaded 300 rounds of hot lead into targets all afternoon long. My rifle worked fine, my magazines loaded just swell and my car had a nice offroad drive through some mudbanks on the way out. No irradiation symptoms at all.

40 million and 10 years is an insult to all of the intelligent, talented nuclear engineers that work in our nuclear power industry. I know many bright minds that came from both the Navy and college and they are all people I would feel comfortable designing and running these plants. If our administration was serious, they would through 250 million at the program or more--they gave Acorn what, 2 billion? The biggest joke is they spent 2.4 Billion in funding next generation electric vehicles?

What on earth do they expect these vehicles to be powered by? Pedals from exercise bikes in your homes? Clean coal? Give me a break. They spent 2.4 Billion on crap that will require MORE power, yet only spend 40 million on the obvious SOLUTION to the problem. This is absurd. No, this is an obamanation.


RE: Wow...
By therealnickdanger on 9/22/2009 11:43:53 AM , Rating: 5
Sadly, until NIMBY-zealots, enviro-nazis, and their respective attorneys are all drawn and quartered, even an approved plan with purchased property will be held up for years in legal battles. Nuclear power doesn't need money from the government, it needs deregulation !


RE: Wow...
By Suomynona on 9/22/2009 11:53:49 AM , Rating: 5
I'm with you as far as environmentalist wackos who cut off their nuclear noses to spite their faces, but Obama isn't anti-nuke. For a relatively liberal Democrat, he's actually pretty open to nuclear power, and was attacked during the primaries for it.


RE: Wow...
By Pneumothorax on 9/22/2009 12:03:07 PM , Rating: 1
Although he doesn't really talk negatively about it, NOT funding it properly has the same effect.


RE: Wow...
By MrBlastman on 9/22/2009 12:11:43 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly, that is how politicians work. Every notice how they respond to a question that they would rather not answer? They brush it aside.

This is precisely what they are doing here. Sweeping it under the rug with just enough money to say hey, we're giving it a little try but not enough to accomplish much.


RE: Wow...
By 67STANG on 9/22/2009 5:12:21 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure that AIG must be building advanced reactors. We gave them 2,125x more money than has been devoted to this.

As someone who gets paid very well working for a renewable energy company, I have to thank Mr. Obama for securing my future at the cost of everyone else.


RE: Wow...
By Spuke on 9/22/2009 5:41:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As someone who gets paid very well working for a renewable energy company
I need to get into this industry. Should be good for at least 10-15 years.


RE: Wow...
By mattclary on 9/22/2009 1:23:46 PM , Rating: 5
Politicians don't like nuclear energy because it actually resolves a couple of problems that they can exploit to their benefit. Start building nuke plants and you can't pass a cap and tax plan and you can't keep tensions as high in the mid-east.

The best way to control a populace is to give them something to fear.


RE: Wow...
By Zoomer on 9/23/2009 7:34:32 PM , Rating: 2
We should put into office these who would rather not be office, but someone who cares. Only then would hard decisions that are beneficial but politically hard to do be done.


RE: Wow...
By andrinoaa on 9/23/2009 3:12:53 AM , Rating: 2
Not Funding is a problem? Fit would have a heart failure. Fit doesn't beleive in government funding for ANYTHING.


RE: Wow...
By Yawgm0th on 9/22/2009 12:07:23 PM , Rating: 3
The problem is after the primaries he mostly kept any support of nuclear to himself. I voted for Obama, so don't get me wrong, but misguided environmentalists on the far left make it pretty much impossible for any Democrat to get anything nuclear done in this country. Obama can't fight the far left and everything right of center all at once.


RE: Wow...
By FITCamaro on 9/22/2009 12:21:02 PM , Rating: 5
He claims he's pro-nuclear. But his actions speak otherwise. He himself ordered the closing of the Yucca mountain facility. Put several hundred people out of work. Why? Because he says we're going to pursue reprocessing.

Call me crazy but wouldn't it make more sense to get reprocessing working first before closing the several billion dollar storage facility that was to be the sole facility to store waste in instead of keeping large amounts of it stored around the country?


RE: Wow...
By randomly on 9/23/2009 9:46:31 AM , Rating: 2
Closing Yucca mountain was both a political move and a nuclear policy shift.
Yucca mountain was chosen when Nevada was politically weak, however over the years Senator Ensign of Nevada, first in the House of Representatives and later in the Senate gained more and more power and has successfully blocked interim storage in Nevada, and now gotten Yucca Mountain canceled.

However this may actually turn out to be a good thing because of the change in policy first set by Jimmy Carter that nuclear waste would not be reprocessed because of nuclear proliferation concerns. This was driven by the fact that most reprocessing approaches at some point separate out the plutonium from the fuel which could be diverted for bomb use.
However reprocessing has huge advantages. The vast majority of spent fuel is just depleted uranium U-238. Reprocessing reduces the volume of the waste to be stored by about 20:1. Also if you separate out the plutonium and minor actinides from the spent fuel and burn them either in a fast reactor or with Accelerator driven Transmutation of Waste (ATW) you eliminate the intermediate term radioactive isotopes and the remaining short life isotopes decay away quickly to safe levels in only hundreds of years. This hugely reduces the nuclear waste disposal problem.

Canceling Yucca Mountain within the context of a policy shift to fuel reprocessing is actually a very good thing in this case. Two thumbs up to Obama on this one.


RE: Wow...
By Ammohunt on 9/22/2009 2:14:01 PM , Rating: 3
He will cater to his mainstram base of anti-capitalist, eviro-socialists in the end; far left is not so far any more.


RE: Wow...
By Pneumothorax on 9/22/2009 12:04:14 PM , Rating: 4
Don't worry we'll have solar plants in Alaska and Switchgrass growing in millions of acres in Arizona.


RE: Wow...
By Whedonic on 9/22/2009 12:13:51 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think it's the administration's stalling, it's just that under current regulations (which have been around for a long while now) it takes a LOT of time to get a nuclear plant project off the ground. Ten years is the correct time frame under those rules, though I do wish it could be expedited!


RE: Wow...
By MrJim on 9/22/2009 2:14:18 PM , Rating: 2
Good post, im also pro-nuclear power. But the problem is the waste. Not the plants themselves. More research should go to this, but the environmentalists dont want that.


RE: Wow...
By exploderator on 9/23/2009 3:00:50 AM , Rating: 2
The problem with old reactors is the waste.

We have had options like Molten Salt Reactors since the mid 1960's, and have not used them. Apparently because they don't use expensive (read huge profit) fuel rod assemblies (how manufacturers make their continued revenues). Terrible shame. Oughtta be a law.

MSR, and other breeders, don't produce much waste because they use almost all of the fuel you feed them. Plus, the on site salt reprocessing produces waste that will be decayed within a few hundred years, not a few hundred thousand. We can safely store the very small waste for a few hundred years. As a MAJOR added bonus, we could burn most existing waste in MSR as well, so we actually have a solution available to UNDO the mess we already have.

I doubt we can actually safely deal with the waste we have now, and will have made before we quit our current reactors. We need new breeder reactors to solve the problem. With thorium fueled reactors, we get a solution to both energy and nuclear waste problems, plus a way and a reason to tear down our nuclear weapons for use as startup fuel. The future came in 1965, we need to get on with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle


RE: Wow...
By MatthiasF on 9/22/2009 2:15:43 PM , Rating: 2
Nuclear power is awsome. Obama is for it and not stalling. Feel free to watch the application process for yourself.

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/re...

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col.html

Or better yet, attend some of the public meetings about new reactors being built in your area so you can offset some of the nuke pansie sentiment by showing support!


RE: Wow...
By brshoemak on 9/22/2009 4:05:22 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
This is a stall tactic being pushed by the Obama administration.


If you think slow progress from the nuclear industry is from the period of the Obama administration I think you should look a little further back in history towards the period of Jimmy Carter and the environmental overreaction that is Three Mile Island.

The public opinion fallout of that single event and the resulting enviro-wackos has done more to curb the proliferation of nuclear generated energy in the US than probably all other extraneous factors combined.

If you're going to use this article to hop up on your political soapbox and lay blame, you may want to bring some notes with you when do you so you don't start spouting uninformed and administration-biased fluff.

btw, i'm not an Obama supporter. I support keeping terms like Bush/Obama, liberal/conservative, right-wing/left wing, Democrat/Republican OUT of discussions that affect the future of our country future - Americans don't have the leisure to separate ourselves from each other when we all face the same problems. I support ideas that work, regardless of who presents them. Essentially, I'm tired of group/party bullshit and would prefer a meaningful conversation, but thanks for enforcing this "obamanation" of separatist ideas so we can continue bickering about non-sense and ignore real issues.


RE: Wow...
By Spuke on 9/22/2009 5:46:17 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Essentially, I'm tired of group/party bullshit and would prefer a meaningful conversation, but thanks for enforcing this "obamanation" of separatist ideas so we can continue bickering about non-sense and ignore real issues.
THANK YOU!!!


RE: Wow...
By randomly on 9/23/2009 10:05:40 AM , Rating: 2
Please do a little research before you go off ranting.

This is a developmental reactor for a Very High Temperature Gas Reactor. A great deal of research and testing on materials and fabrication techniques is needed for a very high temperature high neutron flux environment before you can even begin construction. Nuclear plants are complex systems and need extremely careful and detailed analysis of every aspect of the system to maintain safety.

I suggest you do a little research into how complex the process is before you go off ranting about 10 years being ridiculous. From my knowledge base it sounds quite reasonable. Most of the Gen IV reactor technologies (of which this is one)were not projected to be ready for commercial deployment till about 2030.


RE: Wow...
By randomly on 9/23/2009 10:07:45 AM , Rating: 2
I will agree with you that 40 million is not nearly enough.


RE: Wow...
By ClownPuncher on 9/22/2009 11:56:01 AM , Rating: 2
It is ridiculous. Though a quick fact check might help: many reactors have come online in the US since the '70's. The US also produces more energy from nuclear than any other country.


RE: Wow...
By FITCamaro on 9/22/2009 12:17:01 PM , Rating: 3
Exactly. Several companies have excellent plant designs. We don't need to design a whole new plant. This is stall tactics to make it look like they're pursuing nuclear.


RE: Wow...
By Iaiken on 9/22/2009 2:10:12 PM , Rating: 2
I would suppose that this is a supposition...

Not much you can do about it, but complain, wait and see...


RE: Wow...
By MatthiasF on 9/22/2009 2:04:35 PM , Rating: 4
I really wish people would read the article being cited.

This isn't some fancy new type of nuclear plant. They're investigating ways to use waste heat to help refining and other industrial processes. The $40 Million will be used to mostly generate options for sending the steam to other industrial aparatuses, like seperating heavy petroleum layers (one method of shale oil extaction uses tons of steam).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_oil_extraction#...

So, it's not making the nuclear process better, it's just trying to make the entire process more efficient by pushing the waste heat into something more productive than a giant cooling tower, or perhaps helping to build plants that are safe to be used for other purposes beyond electricity generation.

Meanwhile, the typical policial nutjobs don't bother looking at the facts, instead making up conspiracies to fit into their world view of "ZOMG OBAMA HASN'T BEEN IN OFFICE A YEAR YET BUT HE OBVIOUSLY INCOMPETENT AND EVIL".


RE: Wow...
By lightfoot on 9/22/2009 2:38:19 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
"ZOMG OBAMA HASN'T BEEN IN OFFICE A YEAR YET BUT HE OBVIOUSLY INCOMPETENT AND EVIL".

Lawful Evil is still Evil, just check the Player's Handbook page 76.


RE: Wow...
By randomly on 9/23/2009 8:04:02 AM , Rating: 2
Even current design commercial plants take about 6 years to build assuming no delays. They are huge complex construction projects that need to be done carefully and correctly. The reactor vessels are the largest single piece forgings in the world. You can certainly build a safe nuclear plant, but you have to be diligent about it and it just takes time.

This is apparently about the development of the Very High Temperature reactor. One of six theoretical designs designated in the Gen IV reactor class. Reactor outlet temperature is in the 1000 C range. The advantages are higher thermal efficiency in power generation and the temperature is high enough to drive chemical processes directly such as the sulfur-iodine cycle to produce hydrogen directly from water. This is only economical method of hydrogen production that is not fossil fuel based.

Unfortunately this is a once through fuel cycle reactor so it does nothing to address the nuclear waste problem other than it burns less fuel for the same power out.

They need to put research money into the Molten Salt Reactor and the Thorium fuel cycle.


Stop the hot air!!!
By mb28 on 9/22/2009 12:54:57 PM , Rating: 4
There is a lot of hot air on these forums any time someone posts about nuclear technology and though I love to read the news about it, I would like to dispel some incorrect information that is thrown around here.

First, there have been many nuclear power plants brought online into the 80's and 90's. Some examples include: Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant in Georgia, 1989, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant in Tennessee, 1996.

All info is available here: http://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelnuclear.html

Additional info can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_...

I know it's wikipedia, but it's a great place to start looking. Go through the extra links and sources at the bottom of the page. There is lots of information available.

Furthermore, the US produces more megawatts of electricity from Nuclear power than any other nation in the world.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.html

True, it is not a large % (only about 19%) of our total electricity usage, but it is there, and we are looking to build more in the future. So please, a little credit is needed for the US. We do an okay job at the moment. Obviously there is room for improvement, but many of the blanketed statements in these forums don't really reflect this, so I thought I would help point it out. :)




RE: Stop the hot air!!!
By lightfoot on 9/22/2009 3:13:15 PM , Rating: 2
That doesn't change the fact that the current administration is openly hostile to the industry, that the industry is grossly underfunded, and liberal extremists (ie - progressives) actively obstruct any project with the word Nuclear in it. And two plants in the last 30 years (and none in the last 13) does not in any way show that Nuclear power is being embraced, or even actively researched.

Americans continue to prove that they are the best educated ignorant people on the planet.


RE: Stop the hot air!!!
By mb28 on 9/22/2009 4:33:22 PM , Rating: 2
I would be curious to see some of your sources that support the claim that

quote:
the current administration is openly hostile to the industry


RE: Stop the hot air!!!
By lightfoot on 9/22/2009 7:52:51 PM , Rating: 2
Openly hostile might have been going a bit far. I can find no explicit statements that are openly hostile, but it does raise eyebrows when the administration is so hostile to green-house gas emissions and virtually ignores the existance of the nuclear power industry.

The only statement I could find is that Hillary Clinton (Secretary of State) is "agnostic" toward nuclear power, and Obama is slightly more supportive of it.

Unfortunately when the administration does nothing to support Nuclear power and even goes so far as to shut down Yucca Mountain, it is hard to see that type of action as being anything but hostile toward the industry.


RE: Stop the hot air!!!
By Spuke on 9/22/2009 5:51:32 PM , Rating: 2
Read a previous post. There are quite a bit more than two nuclear plants that have been built in the last 30 years.

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col.html

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/re...


RE: Stop the hot air!!!
By lightfoot on 9/22/2009 7:11:52 PM , Rating: 2
I admit that I only skimmed the permits listed, but there are some MAJOR problems with these lists.

First off, an application for a permit being submitted is not the same as a nuclear power plant being built. Most of these permits were requested in the last year or two, and thus have not YET been built.

Secondly, many of the licences listed are for permit RENEWALS, not new permits.

Third, only the applications for "Unit 1" at proposed locations can be considered "new" plants. All others are expansions of existing plants. (But it is more power generating capacity so I can't complain.)


controversial ?
By kattanna on 9/22/2009 11:37:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
One of the most controversial types of energy production in the world is nuclear power


only to those who listen to opinion instead of facts




RE: controversial ?
By lightfoot on 9/22/2009 2:59:34 PM , Rating: 2
True, the Commercial Nuclear Power Industry is by far one of the safest industries that the world has ever seen. More people die from lightning strikes every year (200 in the US alone) than have EVER died in the Nuclear Power industry. (56 people died at Chernobyl, which was undergoing an experiment at the time of the disaster.)


RE: controversial ?
By Spuke on 9/22/2009 5:53:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
56 people died at Chernobyl, which was undergoing an experiment at the time of the disaster.
Not to mention they used a design that is considered unsafe and no western country uses that design.


wow...
By knutjb on 9/22/2009 12:00:22 PM , Rating: 2
This is nothing more than throwing chump change so the current administration can say "were working on nuke research too". Meanwhile billions are headed to wind and solar. Talk about bait and switch. The key that this is a joke, would the current powers that be build a petroleum refinery? We need a leader, not a consensus builder who wants to make me feel good when all I want is the lights to keep working.




RE: wow...
By MadMan007 on 9/22/2009 12:38:24 PM , Rating: 2
Don't underestimate feeling good! Nor looking good like stretchy-faced alien-cum-House Speaker Pelosi!

(/JOKE tag for tards like FIT who might take this seriously)


RE: wow...
By cornelius785 on 9/22/2009 3:18:23 PM , Rating: 2
I'm disappointed that so much money is going into wind and solar (amoung other renewables and things that appear to be a 'stop-gap' solution). I'm all for nuclear power plants. We now how to build them, run them, and they produce huge amounts of clean power for their size for fairly cheap (can't say about wind or solar).

I'd rather see those billions spent on helping power companies/states build nuclear power plants and pushing for some combination of: electric cars, plugin capable hybrid cars, and hydroen fuel cell cars. Maybe it is time to send out pro-nuclear power propaganda to sway people to nuclear and end this ridiculous legal mess that slows or stop nuclear power deployment.


Radiation causes global warming!
By drank12quartsstrohsbeer on 9/22/2009 12:00:29 PM , Rating: 2
Its true.




RE: Radiation causes global warming!
By Pneumothorax on 9/22/2009 12:06:30 PM , Rating: 2
You must be talking about the Spaghetti Monster Designed yellow glowing nuke reactor in the sky.


By lightfoot on 9/22/2009 2:33:58 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, that's the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Show some respect.


Refinery next to a Nuclear plant?
By toyotabedzrock on 9/22/2009 1:44:43 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not to keen on the idea of putting a refinery next to a nuclear plant for 2 reasons.

First a refinery has trucks coming and going all the time, which means that it will be more difficult to protect the nuclear plant.

Second what happens if the refinery has an accident? The explosion can be very large and could compromised the integrity of the nuclear reactor.




RE: Refinery next to a Nuclear plant?
By Comdrpopnfresh on 9/22/2009 3:08:56 PM , Rating: 2
it's not so much directly next to it, is it? I thought the idea was to apply produced heat to industrial and commercial processes. I would think you could place an adjacent facility sufficiently far away.


By lightfoot on 9/22/2009 3:18:28 PM , Rating: 2
It is important to note that it is the refinery that makes it less safe, not the Nuclear reactor. A refinery, no matter where it is located, is very dangerous - far more dangerous than any Nuclear Power Plant.


Holy cow! $40M!
By mattclary on 9/22/2009 1:17:55 PM , Rating: 2
That ought to last... what? One day?




RE: Holy cow! $40M!
By lightfoot on 9/22/2009 2:43:14 PM , Rating: 2
If that. That's less than half the amount that Obama bragged about his advisors finding in the couch cushions.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/21/ob...


Chump change
By borowki2 on 9/22/2009 11:18:21 AM , Rating: 2
That's probably not enough money for conducting environmental impact studies, let alone designing and building a plant. It's a fraction of the grant given to battery makers earlier this year. Heck, it's less than what the NEA is getting.

What a freaking joke!




Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant
By nidomus on 9/22/2009 11:53:46 AM , Rating: 2
Reading an article from 2007 about a company applying in Maryland for the right to add a third reactor at the Calvert Cliffs plant, it states this, "Once the NRC starts considering the application(for the plant), the clock starts running on review costs, which could reach $23 million for the company, Burnell said. Constellation said application costs could eventually reach $100 million, part of which would be covered by the Energy Department to encourage development." So, just the application part costs more than this paltry 40 million.

Also, this plant has been approved, and they will start construction by the end of the year if they can get a conditional loan guarantee commitment.

As for total estimated cost to build the plant. Somewhere around 4 Billion.




Seems pointless
By nafhan on 9/22/2009 1:03:57 PM , Rating: 2
The part about integrating other industrial processes into the nuke plant, seems pointless. I really fail to see the benefit of creating a new design for this.
It seems like taking a current nuclear power plant (doesn't necessarily need to be nuclear, even) and just putting the "other industrial processes" nearby - where they can get the power cheaply and efficiently - would be safer and easier.
We have some great reactor designs right now. Let's go ahead and start building!




GE and nuclear
By poundsmack on 9/22/2009 1:13:18 PM , Rating: 2
GE has done some really great things in the nuclear field http://www.ge-energy.com/prod_serv/products/nuclea...

some of their next gen designs are really promising.




How stupid
By Comdrpopnfresh on 9/22/2009 1:15:29 PM , Rating: 2
In the nuclear game, 40 million dollars won't even buy you the bucket for the proverbial drop.

We already had laid the groundwork for HTGR plants- I think an experimental one was built too (unless I'm thinking of a molten salt cooled reactor).

The NRC is already so overwhelmed and understaffed that they've placed a hold on accepting modular designs for certification. Hell, they don't even have the process fully planned out for the 0->Running certification and build process for the current plants we're in the process of starting.

Yeah, let's go ahead and yell at the little kid, who's already a distressed swimmer, about how he's splashing.

I say invest the 40mil in a PR and political activism campaign to close the fuel cycle- then the dumb call-themselves-greenies won't have much to complain about.

And to the author of this (otherwise well written) article and anyone who ascribes to the statement
"a major meltdown, however unlikely, could occur"
Find the statistics for nuclear power related deaths in the US (aww hell- go ahead and go for the globe!) from any number of credible websites with cross-referenced scientific data and studies. Then, google "Bhopal."
And if you want to play the 'hasn't happened yet, but whatiff...' game- that is a crossing @ an intersection with a lot of cross traffic.




sounds great!
By MadMan007 on 9/22/09, Rating: -1
RE: sounds great!
By FITCamaro on 9/22/2009 12:26:22 PM , Rating: 3
Please explain, oh mighty one, how these things will explode? Furthermore, please reference a single case where there was an explosion at a US oil refinery in the past 10 years.

And hydrogen is produced in nuclear power generation. They would be merely collecting and storing it.


RE: sounds great!
By MadMan007 on 9/22/2009 12:34:25 PM , Rating: 1
Get a sense of humor. I thought the CAPS'd word would make it clear I was making a joke but I guess I have to put /joke tags for tards who take everything seriously?


RE: sounds great!
By lightfoot on 9/22/2009 3:40:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Please reference a single case where there was an explosion at a US oil refinery in the past 10 years

Like the Texas City, TX Refinery explosion on March 23, 2005? 15 dead over 100 injured.


Boom!
By lowsidex2 on 9/22/09, Rating: -1
RE: Boom!
By ClownPuncher on 9/22/2009 11:59:25 AM , Rating: 2
I fail to see the problem. These things are much safer than coal or even hydroelectric plants.


RE: Boom!
By FITCamaro on 9/22/2009 12:22:54 PM , Rating: 2
I find your excess of fail disturbing.

You're a moron. There is no problem putting ANYTHING next to a nuclear power plant.


RE: Boom!
By StraightCashHomey on 9/22/09, Rating: 0
"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings

DailyTech Poll
Do you use copy/paste on your smartphone? 




16 Comments







botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki