New Nukes? 3

[Zogzog]

What is the latest news on building new nuke plants in the US? Last I heard there were several licences issued mostly for the mid atlantic area.

I was a navy nuke but went into the HV power system testing field and have been considering entering back into the nuke world. I am also considering a move to the mid atlantic area.

 

[rmw]

Even ALGORE (whose Bravo Sierra I don't put much stock in-but I recognize that the gullible masses do) stated yesterday in his 10 year challenge to put a man on the moon, oh excuse me, challenge to have a fossil free electrical system alluded to wind, solar and other "carbon free" technologies to accomplish the goal. Since most of us who have any sense realize that wind and solar will add some capacity at the margins but never replace the bulk of what is now done with coal, oil and NG, it can only be assumed that he must be referring to Nuclear. If that is true and he does beat that drum, will the gullible masses buy it? If so, this industry might need after burners.

rmw

 

[mauner]

I saw an interview with a Texas Rancher on a recent weekly news show.

The landscape certainly has changed with all of the wind turbines. He said that he was afraid that the landscape will be "polluted" with abandoned wind turbines once the government subsidy runs out and it is no longer economical to produce electricity.

I hope ALGORE has addressed "decommissioning costs" and who is responsible for taking down the wind turbines on leased land when the GENCO has gone bankrupt!

mh

 

[Bagman2524]

NRC has posted on their website that a license has been applied for 2 new Advanced PWR nukes at Comanche Peak site.

 

[EdStainless]

It looks like the Unistar effort to build Alstom plants at Constellation sites has taken a setback with MidAmerica buying Const.
That is tough luck for the French.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Plymouth Tube

 

[Zogzog]

From the debate this week it looks like alot of these depend on Obama or McCain. McCain mentioned 45 new plants (I think he said 45), Obama skipped nuclear when listing his energy policy, seems anti nuke but wont come out and say it.

 

[electricpete]

There is no doubt that McCain expresses stronger support for nuclear power.

But I don't think what either candidate thinks on this particular issue will make a big difference in what happens. For one thing, they are not in a position to do anything on their own. To change laws or budget they need congress. And most of the factors that affect the next round of reactors have very little to do with executive government... more to do wtih finanacing, availablility of parts and people, navigating through all the wickets, etc etc. Neither one is going to change that.

So I think in general we shouldn't put so much importance on the specific views of a candidate because those rarely translate into reality. If you were hiring someone to make important decisions and provide leadership, you would look at which one seems more intelligent, competent, deliberate etc.




=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[electricpete]

I guess I should say our decision as voters should consider not only the opinions/positions of the candidates, but how capable they appear to be an effective and competent leader and decision maker.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[mauner]

Here is my position

During the democratic debates Obama said he is against Yucca Mountain and doesn't want it to open. Obama did acknowledge that you need nuclear power and that there are several plants in his home state.

Conclusion about Obama's position:

Without Yucca Mountain the nuclear industry will come to a grinding halt - no one will want to store 40 years of fuel on site in their neighborhood. Obama only wants nuclear during the transition to solar, wind, or other "free" energy.

As for McCain, he wants to re-process nuclear fuel like the French. I believe President Carter, an ex-Navy nuke, signed the law to prohibit commercial reprocessing of fuel and the building breeder reactors. Can anyone confirm this law?

 

[vpl]

I believe mauner's correct, that there is a federal law that would require revision before we could reprocess.

At the risk of this descending to a political debate (and that usually means people who have already made up their minds espousing their opinions, with no hope of changing anyone else's opinion):

Although I cannot speak for the federal agency for which I work, it is highly unlikely that that unnamed federal agency would complete licensing of even four-to-five nuclear power plants within the first four years of either candidate's presidency. Especially if there was an across-the-board freeze on government programs, as espoused by one candidate.

I recognize that the same candidate actually repeated, several times, that he was looking to build "forty-five" plants which would create "millions of jobs" (and, wow, those plants are going to have to have HUGE staffs) but I will be kind and assume that was hyperbole.

Additionally, even with a pro-nuclear president, if there is an anti-nuclear congress, the nuclear option will go nowhere. (I hope everyone realizes that Pete Domenici of New Mexico is not running for re-election; he's been a major pro-nuclear Senator; even though I've not always agreed with him.)

As someone who lived (and worked for a short time) through the previous nuclear boom and bust, I feel that the economy will have a far greater impact on nuclear's future than either candidate.

And as an end-note, Illinois has the most nuclear plants of any state, but the Senator from Illinois had nothing to do with their being built. He wasn't even in the State government at the time they were built. Actually, umm, some of them were licensed when he was a little kid and even the "newest" plant is over 20 years old.

Patricia Lougheed

Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of the Eng-Tips Forums.

 

[mauner]

vpl,

You make some good points, but even an anti-nuclear congress will want to reduce CO2 emissions, especially, since both candidates want CO2 limits.

Any legislation on pollutants such as CO2 will drive up the per kW cost. Previously, nuclear power could never compete with "dirt burners", but given the cost of CO2 scrubbers, the nuke industry actually has a good chance for revival. You simply can't base load the grid with wind and solar power.

Just out of curosity, do you know if dry cask storage is included in any of the new license applications?

 

[vpl]

mauner

Dry cask storage is a Part 72 license and needs to be applied for separately from a Part 50 or Part 52 license (which means "no").

Patricia Lougheed

Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of the Eng-Tips Forums.

 

[EdStainless]

The issue with wind and solar that gets overlooked is that regardless how much you build it does not decrease the amount of conventional power that you need. Unless you stick with solar/thermal which has some coast capability or you use the wind/solar power to drive pumped storage for hydro you have no way to assure supply on demand.

I'll be surprised if more than just a few Nucs get built.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Plymouth Tube

 

[electricpete]

I found this video with Obama describing his position on nuclear power in fairly good detail:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRxl2cVFTLw

The questioner stated that there is no no independent review required for plant life extension and that most extension requests are approved.

Obama stated "I would reverse that position"

Obama further stated "The NRC has become a morebund agency that needs to be revamped, and has become captive of the industry that it regulates"

"NRC similar to FCC, EPA, FDA.... federal agencies that over the last 7 years have been filled with cronies and lost their sense of mission."

He supports a central location for fuel storage, but no Yucca mountain since it is "built on a fault line".

He describes himself as an agnostic on nuclear power. It is not off the table, because there is no perfect energy source. It should be in the mix IF safe, know how to store it, not vulnerable to terrorist attack.

"I don't think there is anyone that dislikes nuclear power, we just dislike the fact that it may blow up and radiate and kill us" (??)

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[Zogzog]

I am giddy awaiting Patricia's response

 

[electricpete]

It was not my intention to put anyone on the spot to respond. Just wanted to present the position of the candidate in his own words.

It seems self-evident to me that these are policitcally-motivated comments, not comments based on first-hand observation or reliable sources.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[vpl]

As a member of a "moribund agency" and someone who used to be the lead license-renewal inspector for the midwest, in my personal opinion, which does NOT represent an Agency view, there is more than a bit of truth to the comments that electricpete quoted Obama as making. [Realize that I do need to be careful in criticizing my employer, which is the reason for the round-about language and caveats.]

As with any federal agency, the political mood has a large impact on how the agency does business. For the last 8 years, there has been a decided pro-industry focus that might very well shift, dependent upon the election results. That would not necessarily be bad.

I started to write further providing my opinion of some of the demands for "independent" reviews as well as the "rubberstamping" accusation, but decided this thread has already veered well off anything nuclear work-related. So I will refrain.




Patricia Lougheed

Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of the Eng-Tips Forums.

 

[Wecos]

"...we just dislike the fact that it may blow up..."

just plain ignorant

 

[unclesyd]

Wecos,
Most of the time when I hear about the possibility of a Nuclear Plant exploding they show a picture of Chernobyl. Not quite the same.

 

[nickelkid]

Chernobyl is what happens without healthy checks and balances.

 

[mauner]

Chernobyl had a graphite moderated reactor design that relied on operational procedures to prevent a reactivity addition accident.

All of the new nuke plants use water (light water) as the moderator.

I am concerned because McCain wants to re-process fuel.

I'm not sure how the French do it, but eventually the commercial industry will want to use breeder reactors. Why re-process? When you can make fuel as you go!

Unfortunately, breeder reators use fast fuels which can not be moderated or controlled with water.

These reactors can blow up and are illegal in the US!