Isn't it time to start building many more nuclear power plants?

[Bill]

I recently read a scientific american article about the latest generations of nuclear power plants, specifically, the fast neutron reactor, which so efficiently burns it's nuclear fuel that waste products only need to be stored for 500 years, by which time they have decayed to the point that they are less radioactive than natural uranium ore. The fast nuetron reactor also burns the plutonium it naturally generates _without_ allowing it to become a purified form that can be easily used in weapons, a distinct advantage over the older fast breeder reactors.

The fast neutron reactor can 'burn', fission, up to 95% (possibly up to 99%) of the energy available in the uranium which is the fuel for all reactors - unlike our current slow neutron reactors, which only 'burn' one percent - yes, one percent - of the energy in the fuel rods.

As I understand it, China is building a number of test sites with the other type of modern nuclear reactor, the pebble bed nuclear reactor. In many ways they are way ahead of us in the last generation of nuclear technology.

In fact, there exist no modern generation nuclear plants here in the US - the latest, most modern plants are now all in other countries, including France, Japan, and China.

Why is this? Have a bunch of dope-addled hippies stopped the united states from developing one of the most climate friendly power systems of the future?

How ironic that hippies stopped the one viable large-scale energy source that doesn't contribute to global warming.

[Mr. Blue]

If memory serves me right 80% of Frances electricity needs are covered by Nuclear power at the moment. I think the U.S. is something like 20%.

My take on it...I wish there was a better solution than nuclear plants, but considering that all the green friendly type energy like solar, wind, etc, is so far off from supplying the needs of the population, that Nuclear might be the short term bridge that countries will have to take until something better comes along.

[SirMoby]

It's been time for decades now. We could cut our green house emissions, lower energy costs and remove some need for fossil fuels but ......

We're a country full of fear. Nuclear power is cost effective, only effects a very small portion of the environment (that's where the waste is stored) and even the accident at Three Mile Island caused far less damage then a small oil spill.

However, we've heard of Chernobyl and we live in constant fear simply because out government tells us to be afraid.

No one wants a nuclear plant close to them so where could you build them?

[RawAlex]

Moby, once again you are hitting the biggest issues of the day: 3 out of the last 4 presidents have had a vested interest in the oil business in one form or another (Reagan with Bush Sr as VP), so almost all of the policy making for 25 years has been pro-oil.

Nuckear stuff is pretty scary at times... but the US has an untold number of semi-stable old nuclear warheads all over the place. They cannot be any safer than a well built, well managed nuclear plant.

[Bill]

As to where to build them, there's another important new technology that needs to be tested and the first sections of it built, and that is a superconducting electrical transmission trunk line - basically a superconducting buried electric cable. Suxh a cable can carry enourmous amounts of current with no loss.

And, nuclear plants usually need to be near water, and if we are to use them to make hydrogen, they especially need to be near water.

So, on the water about 50 miles from a major city, so that a superconducting line can connect the plant to the city, providing a fountain of cheap electricity for the city.

American innovation and infrastructure has stalled and is declining - other countries are trying to jump ahead while we sit on aging technology. Wether it's nuclear plants or fluidized bed coal burning plants, or some other new technology, we need to start investing into the future again.

[Kinky Jones]

I live somewhat close the Palo Verde nuclear plant in AZ, it's old but never had any really major problems that I recall without looking it up, and the technology of today has to make it extremely safe compared to the ones built long in the past, especially like Chernobyl which did not have nearly the proper safeguards in place...

Chernobyl and Three Mile Island scared the hell outta people and set back nucUlar LOL energy quite a few years, the research has been done to further the technology but fear keeps anything from getting done, people are led to believe that nuclear is a very bad word...

I went and looked it up, here is an article (http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2004/Palo-Verde-Aging11apr04.htm)on the history of Palo Verde from '04 that details the problems, and is sorta scary when you factor in that our old reactors are literally falling apart :( and it actually isn't very old considering they are given a 40 year license and are "routinely" given 20 yr extensions...

[Bill]

yes, there are a number of problems with the older style reactors - and most arise because of the water that is used as the cooling fluid for the reactor. The water has to be under very high pressures and fairly high temperatures, and that leads to metal fatigue and hydrogen embrittlement - and when the metal fails, the extremely high pressure spray the highly radioactive water into the surroundings, which is about the worst possible thing that can happen.

Pebble bed reactors use carbon dioxide or helium gas as the coolant - and are inherently self-controlling. Fast neutron reactors use liguid sodium or liguid lead metal as the coolant, but the metal is _not_ under pressure, so it can't spray everywhere if there is a leak.

The reason fast neutron reactors are better than pebble bed reactors is that they are able to "burn" the metal fuels much more efficiently, burning them up so well that the remaining waste is almost safe. In fact, the worlds existing fast neutron reactors are used already for just this purpose, to convert dangerous materials into safer forms.

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

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

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html

[RawAlex]

Having driver across the US both through the north and through the south, I have not problem stating that there are many, many places that would be perfectly suitable for this type of idea.

Basically, anywhere that qualifies for a nuclear warhead is probably a good place to start :)

[Linkster]

I suppose I should weigh in here having worked in (and retired from) nuclear power all of my life :)
First - the news media played on the publics associations of nuclear with bombs during TMI - thats what the media is supposed to do - give inaccurate reporting to boost readership/listeners- while the problem they had was really a training and operator issue, not a physical equipment problem, that has since been corrected throughout all US plants, and I have and would live next to one of these plants with no issue whatsoever.The news media really needs some experts who know what they are talking about as 99% of the information they spew about plants is inaccurate - including that story posted from the newspaper.

TMI - when it occured - put out less radiation to the public than you would get making the round trip flight to a convention this year. If you happen to live in Denver, you receive over 100 times the radiation that the personnel at Three Mile Island inside the operating room received - just by living in a city higher in elevation.
And yes - all radiation has the same effects (Im generalizing here) but the way its measured these days is in the biological effects so that is a correct statement, whether it comes from cosmic radiation or from gamma exposure at a nuke plant.

As far as water sources for plants - one of the newest plants (So Texas) built their own pond( huge actually) since they were not near any good sources of water.

The "leaks" that everyone concerns themselves with (like in that article) are contained within whats called a containment building and are cleaned up under very controlled conditions - when a plant vents steam during a leak it does so in a way that causes no effect on the surroundings - as an example - all plants do outside monitoring - a plant I worked at for a while in Fla had two coal burning plants next door - we had to monitor every night outside the plant to prove the radiation alarms we were getting in the nuke plant were being caused by the burning of the natural uranium/radon etc in the coal next door - yet those high levels of radiation never get any press

The other problem people tend to have is the accident (at least thats what most people seem to call it - it was really a stupid game some engineers were playing) at Chernobyl - that type of plant design would never be and has never been used in the US - it was deemed not safe back in the 1950s and unfortunately there are quite a few more like that one in Russia - they tended to go for quantity over quality during the cold war - even occured on their nuclear submarines where they wouldnt protect the sailors - life expectancy for a nuclear sailor was very short.

The last - and most important thing to remember about the US plants - they cannot have a nuclear explosion - it is physically impossible - the only explosion at TMI was a small hydrogen explosion but then we've experienced much worse explosions at fertilizer and rubber factories than that.

Another little example of the effects of surounding natural radiation - where I live now there are a huge amount of hunters - you could always tell when they had been eating deer meat - they would set off the plant alarms when they entered due to the cesium that deer have from old atomic testing fallout

As far as new plants - I guess the national media doesnt report this stuff - but there are already permits being issued by the NRC to build new units in the US - the last plant I worked at is already doing the site surveys for another unit and I know that one companies design has already been approved for construction by the NRC so I would say that we should see some new units up and running in very little time - although I would normally agree that the oil companies would fight it - that is something of the past since the energy companies are all a part of the same consortiums now :)

[Tommy]

nuclear power is the future of this country

if and when batteries get to the point that a normal mini van could travel 200 miles on a single charge

after we get to that point i cant see any reason for using gas any more

demand for electricity could be 100 times maybe 1000 times what it is today

[Linkster]

Unfortunately as long as big oil exists and subsidizes the government, we will never see those electric cars produced in large quanities

[Betty Blowtorch]

nuclear power is the future of this country

if and when batteries get to the point that a normal mini van
could travel 200 miles on a single charge

after we get to that point i cant see any reason for using gas
any more
The future is here today!
(Or could be, if we lived in a sane world)

http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/2875/720tesla020550x460xo2.jpg

The new Tesla electric car.

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/1921/720tesla008550x367fy6.jpg

In case you thought electric cars are slow like golf carts,
here are some facts on the Tesla:

Zero to 60mph in four seconds!!
(As fast as a 600-horsepower Porsche Carrera V-10)

250 mile range on a single 3-hour charge.

Costs ONE PENNY per mile to operate.
(The Porsche costs about 30 cents per mile at current gas prices.)

http://img332.imageshack.us/img332/1296/720tesla103550x367da5.jpg

I recently worked a show at an aircraft hanger at the Santa Monica Airport.
The Tesla Motors company was giving rides in the new Tesla roadster
to potential investors, members of the press and...

http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/4466/720tesla035550x367ji9.jpg

Governor Ah-nuld got a ride.

When I saw the Tesla's amazing acceleration, I was blown away.
I thought to myself: electric cars could be the perfect answer to
two of America's most dangerous problems:

(1) our dependence on foreign oil resources
(2) global warming caused by auto emissions.

When I read this thread about clean, safe nuclear power plants,
I realized that America is at a crucial fork in the road. We face
two possible futures:

(1) U.S. military domination of the world's dwindling oil resources
to support our filthy, polluting, gasoline-based economy

OR

(2) An electricity-based economy with millions of non-polluting
electric cars powered by non-polluting nuclear power plants.

It's clear that the Bush gang and the oil corporations are intent
on taking America down the dark, deadly road to war over oil.

Hopefully it's not too late to take the other fork in the road.

[Linkster]

The biggest problem you have right now with building more nuclear plants is really a pretty simple one to overcome - education is the key
For way too long people in the media (and governtment for that matter) have tried to associate nuclear power with nuclear bombs - they are not even close - and with the fear that the media and oil based government instilled in the general public - the costs of getting licensing for a new plant is astronomical - in the billions by the time a plant is actually built.
This cost would go down to a few hundred million per plant if that licensing issue were streamlined and people were actually educated to not be put off my the fear-mongering groups that come into neighborhoods where a plant is about to be built
My take on it is that the oil companies have financed a large amount of the anti-nuke protesting groups - and given them images not far from a mushroom cloud hanging over a cooling tower to arm them.
Unfortunately with games played with the public like that - its going to be tough for an energy group to put out the money - on the other hand fortunately a few (like Entergy) have done just that and have the initial approvals to go ahead
The US's consumption minded population is just getting larger every day - with more "stuff"/toys that need electrical power in some form or another - and I doubt, unless someone forces the issue by blacking out a huge amount of the public for a long period, that they will allow themselves to be educated.

Its kinda a funny story, but in a way sad, while working at one nuclear power plant I was approached by the workers on almost a weekly basis to calm their fears - brought on by media reports of one sort or another - and I finally just started giving education classes to help them past the BS that media had put out.


Just to give an example to back up a claim I made earlier in this thread about the levels of radiation at TMI and flying etc

The measurement we use in the physics field to determine biological effects to the human body are called millirem (one thousandth of a Rem)
The average dose to people in the US is around 300 mRem per year due to natural background sources like radon in the air and water, cosmic radiation from outer space, eating things heavy in radioactive components like bananas that have a lot of Potassium 40 in them, and some that you are born with like carbon 14 (yep that stuff we use for dating dinosaurs)

On top of those sources there are of course man-made radiation sources like cigarette smoking (Polonium), wristwatches with tritium dials, smoke detectors with Americium, coleman lantern mantles and welding rods (thorium) etc etc - and of course x-rays, nuclear medicine, eating deer meat and on and on.

Since we noted that one of the primary natural sources was cosmic radiation (about 10% or so) - if you fly across the US - while you are in the air you are in a higher radiation field - since you are closer to the source of radiation (outer space) - if you live in Denver year round, your exposure is also higher.

Now to TMI - the estimated exposure to someone outside the security fence was one extra millirem and to the general public living in town there was nothing - inside the fence depended on where you were.
The NRC limits the exposure of people in a nuke plant and having worked at many, the people are not exposed anywhere near the limits - as a matter of fact all plants institute a 10% rule - you can only get 10% of the federal limits in a year.


If youre real interested in the differences dependant on where you live the EPA has a great calculator:
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/students/calculate.html

[exarmyranger]

The U.S.A has enough crude in still unused/not drilled deposit's in alaska alone to last 500yrs. Tree Hugger's mean well I suppose,Gotta give them credit.They may not see thing's the same as other's,but what viable solution's have they?bio-this and enviromentally friendly that...hydro,solar,wind,non-pollutant gasses(methanol,and such) the list is getting longer.but few take any intrest.Still... All you T.H.'s keep fighting the good fight,save the whale's.an all that...Good Night To All.

[Bill]

The U.S.A has enough crude in still unused/not drilled deposit's in alaska alone to last 500yrs.

Sorry dude, not even close.

Estimates vary a bit, but the last time I checked, there's between a year to maybe, possibly two years worth of oil there. Some estimates say less than a year.

Last time I checked, within it's borders overall, the US has between 3 and 4 years worth of oil at current usage rates. Most of that oil is too expensive to extract and process now, but we'll be glad we have it when the oil starts running out.

We use about 20 million barrels a day, thats seven billion a year (I think). Proven reserves for the whole country at the beginning of this century were about 22 billion barrels.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/SohailAhmed.shtml

I see the alaskan oil as being like that last extra bullet you keep, just in case. In 50 years this country will be surrounded with enemies, the whole planet will want whatever oil remains, and that alaskan oil is what we will need to defend ourselves from china.

I don't think we should sell it off now at a fraction of what it's going to be worth just to make some people richer.

---

The good news is we do have a fair amount of coal, between two hundred or more years worth, five hundred if we invade canada.

[Abnormalia]

Sorry dude, not even close.

Estimates vary a bit, but the last time I checked, there's between a year to maybe, possibly two years worth of oil there. Some estimates say less than a year.

Last time I checked, within it's borders overall, the US has between 3 and 4 years worth of oil at current usage rates. Most of that oil is too expensive to extract and process now, but we'll be glad we have it when the oil starts running out.

We use about 20 million barrels a day, thats seven billion a year (I think). Proven reserves for the whole country at the beginning of this century were about 22 billion barrels.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/SohailAhmed.shtml

I see the alaskan oil as being like that last extra bullet you keep, just in case. In 50 years this country will be surrounded with enemies, the whole planet will want whatever oil remains, and that alaskan oil is what we will need to defend ourselves from china.

I don't think we should sell it off now at a fraction of what it's going to be worth just to make some people richer.

---

The good news is we do have a fair amount of coal, between two hundred or more years worth, five hundred if we invade canada.

Well..I disagree with army on that one of course, but you already covered it Bill.

However, I don't believe in some of the arguments about a third WW because of oil. Right now, there are new and wonderful technologies that haven't made the papers yet or are in development. Some of them you may or may not have heard about:

Biodeisel
Ethanol
n-Butanol (made in a similar way to ethanol, but with a more dense energy content)
Thermal Depolymerization plants
fuel cell technology (advancing quicker than you think..but we won't be filling up with hydrogen any time soon, that's for sure, it will probably be ethanol or methanol)

Green chemistry is gaining strength to attempt to replace oil as sources for industrial chemicals that makes oil so valuable.
Solar Cells -I think this is very interesting, actually- at the polymer institute I was at this summer, a professor was working on multilayer solar cells that would collect infrared, visible, and ultraviolet frequencies of light- pushing the power output for a solar cell through the roof.

[Abnormalia]

Betty Blowtorch

I hate to break it to you, but energy isn't free. If we all bought electric cars, the main source of power in the US (coal plants) would have to expand and work overtime. It's going to be a while before the earth looks like Ferngully again.

[SirMoby]

The U.S.A has enough crude in still unused/not drilled deposit's in alaska alone to last 500yrs. Tree Hugger's mean well I suppose,Gotta give them credit.They may not see thing's the same as other's,but what viable solution's have they?bio-this and enviromentally friendly that...hydro,solar,wind,non-pollutant gasses(methanol,and such) the list is getting longer.but few take any intrest.Still... All you T.H.'s keep fighting the good fight,save the whale's.an all that...Good Night To All.
From what I understand there actually is an enormous supply of petroleum in North America. The issue is that it's mostly in rock and sand. While it can be extracted, the current methods require more energy to extract it then we get from it.

There is a lot of conflicting information about what's actually available in ANWR. Many of the players involved have track records of being wrong possibly to the point of manipulating data. Since nothing has been actually determined it's all speculation. There could be 500 years or 500 worth of oil in ANWR. Until they whack it all down we won't really know for sure but I believe it's some where in between.

[Abnormalia]

From what I understand there actually is an enormous supply of petroleum in North America. The issue is that it's mostly in rock and sand. While it can be extracted, the current methods require more energy to extract it then we get from it.

There is a lot of conflicting information about what's actually available in ANWR. Many of the players involved have track records of being wrong possibly to the point of manipulating data. Since nothing has been actually determined it's all speculation. There could be 500 years or 500(sic) worth of oil in ANWR. Until they whack it all down we won't really know for sure but I believe it's some where in between.


Oil sand, oil shale, etc. So much oil there, unusable at current technology :(

[SirMoby]

The future is here today!
(Or could be, if we lived in a sane world)
When I read this thread about clean, safe nuclear power plants,
I realized that America is at a crucial fork in the road. We face
two possible futures:

(1) U.S. military domination of the world's dwindling oil resources
to support our filthy, polluting, gasoline-based economy

OR

(2) An electricity-based economy with millions of non-polluting
electric cars powered by non-polluting nuclear power plants.

It's clear that the Bush gang and the oil corporations are intent
on taking America down the dark, deadly road to war over oil.

Hopefully it's not too late to take the other fork in the road.
We know who's making money from the US military controlling the oil. We also know that if other technologies are developed to the point of mass production that countries like China can mass produce faster and cheaper then we can which will give them an edge.

Nuclear power does seem to be the cleanest, cheapest and most practical source of energy but there are too many factors against it.

[Betty Blowtorch]

Betty Blowtorch

I hate to break it to you, but energy isn't free.
I've been paying my monthly electric bill for many years now,
so I was already aware that energy isn't free, but thanks for
reminding me.



If we all bought electric cars, the main source of power in the US
(coal plants) would have to expand and work overtime.
I think the main point of this thread is that we need to move
away from the old-fashioned "horse and buggy" technology
of burning fossil fuels, while increasing the construction of
safe, clean nuclear power plants to generate most of the
world's electricity.

Nuclear power is probably the most practical solution at this
point in history. Solar power (or some other technology)
may supersede nuclear power in the future, but not now.

Right now is the time for nuclear power to supersede the
burning of fossil fuels, an outmoded technology that is a
primary cause of global warming and must inevitably go
the way of the dinosaurs.

[Abnormalia]

I've been paying my monthly electric bill for many years now,
so I was already aware that energy isn't free, but thanks for
reminding me.


I think the main point of this thread is that we need to move
away from the old-fashioned "horse and buggy" technology
of burning fossil fuels, while increasing the construction of
safe, clean nuclear power plants to generate most of the
world's electricity.

Nuclear power is probably the most practical solution at this
point in history. Solar power (or some other technology)
may supersede nuclear power in the future, but not now.

Right now is the time for nuclear power to supersede the
burning of fossil fuels, an outmoded technology that is a
primary cause of global warming and must inevitably go
the way of the dinosaurs.

Well, let me fill you in on a few things then. The USA has at least a few hundred years of coal left. It's cheap, it burns, that's why it's attractive. Nuclear powerplants are not necessarily cheap, and they come at a social price as well- who wants to live near a nuclear powerplant? (Well, I suppose who wants to live near a coal burning plant)?

I will agree with you on this point, however: If we can develope nuclear fusion power, we're close to being homefree. Our oceans would feed us for thousands of years with deuterium. I've even heard that in theory, anything could be used for fuel in a fusion reactor (i.e. leftovers from other fission reactors- check me if i'm wrong). It would be nice, but I don't believe we have the capability to deal with all the radioactive waste yet (speaking about fission plants). We'll see though, we'll see. If a new solar cell revolution comes, like I hope it does, our roofs could be tiled with enough cells to run our entire house.

[Betty Blowtorch]

Well, let me fill you in on a few things then. The USA has at least a few hundred years of coal left. It's cheap, it burns, that's why it's attractive. Nuclear powerplants are not necessarily cheap, and they come at a social price as well- who wants to live near a nuclear powerplant? (Well, I suppose who wants to live near a coal burning plant)?
I live in a hot climate -- and the last 10 years have been the hottest
on record -- so I'm sensitive to the issue of global warming.

Obviously people will continue driving their gas-powered cars for the
foreseeable future, and power companies will continue burning coal.
Global warming will keep getting worse, and I don't expect to see
a lot of Tesla electric cars on the road any time soon.

I can't help but wonder if Al Gore had been elected President in 2000,
America would be moving in a different direction. How many nuclear
power plants could be built with the $300 billion that the Bush gang
has blown on the Iraq War?

France produces 75 per cent of its electricity with nuclear power.
We could do the same if we wanted to. Obviously the Bush gang
doesn't want to.

[Abnormalia]

I live in a hot climate -- and the last 10 years have been the hottest
on record -- so I'm sensitive to the issue of global warming.

Obviously people will continue driving their gas-powered cars for the
foreseeable future, and power companies will continue burning coal.
Global warming will keep getting worse, and I don't expect to see
a lot of Tesla electric cars on the road any time soon.

I can't help but wonder if Al Gore had been elected President in 2000,
America would be moving in a different direction. How many nuclear
power plants could be built with the $300 billion that the Bush gang
has blown on the Iraq War?

France produces 75 per cent of its electricity with nuclear power.
We could do the same if we wanted to. Obviously the Bush gang
doesn't want to.

France also has 1/5 our population. That's one fifth less radioactive material, etc. Nuclear power is not the answer right now. Fusion, maybe. We need to develop alternate means, not use current ones.

I have spoken.

[Linkster]

Could I ask why the question about waste from a nuclear power plant? What problems do we have as as far as I can tell we have plenty of storage for the used fuel and there isnt any other real waste from operation that hasnt already been addressed through recycling?
Also why anyone would want to live next to a coal plant where radioactive discharges are huge and nuclear power plants basically put out none?
Or are there other reasons why nuclear power is not a good choice?

[Abnormalia]

Could I ask why the question about waste from a nuclear power plant? What problems do we have as as far as I can tell we have plenty of storage for the used fuel and there isnt any other real waste from operation that hasnt already been addressed through recycling?
Also why anyone would want to live next to a coal plant where radioactive discharges are huge and nuclear power plants basically put out none?
Or are there other reasons why nuclear power is not a good choice?


Good luck building enough to supply the power needs of the US. The biggest problem would probably still be nuclear waste. Imagine how much would be produced?

I'd actually like to see some numbers about how much reactor fuel would be available for how long :confused:

Interesting stuff, interesting stuff.

[Linkster]

Well - I guess that was what I was asking - how much waste is there?
I know how much is produced - which is a very small amount which is generated once every 18 months during refuel
The rest of the low level waste has been reduced to in the range of a few cubic yards a year due to cost savings developments like ultra-compression and dissolvable clothing etc.(yeah I had to see this one to believe it but it actually works - high temp water is used to dissolve the dirty protective clothing and the water can be reprocessed and reused in the reactor.
Seems we already have a storage facility although because congress refuses to do anything it is yet to open - in the meantime the plants have come up with their own ways of storing the waste fuel in dry storage which takes up very little room and can be done on-site for hundreds of years of operation.

The fuel itself is widely available - we have the capacity to produce it extremely efficiently in two plants in Ohio and Kentucky and the raw fuel is widely available in So Africa - as a matter of fact many plants have shut down there producing the raw from the mines due to lack of demand (side story here if youre political minded - the one that the yellow cake for Iraq "came from" has been closed since the early 1960s and hasnt produced yellow cake since then which is why some of us picked up on the idiocy of using this as a story)