Bush Will Push Nuclear Power As Clean, 'Renewable' Energy

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ^ | January 12, 2005 | JOHN J. FIALKA

[dhuffman@awod.com]

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.

[dhuffman@awod.com]

"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.

[dhuffman@awod.com]

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.

[nuke rocketeer]

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.

[nuke rocketeer]

Nope, they just put the last mothballed unbuilt WPPS unit on the scrap/spare parts market a couple of years ago.

[WildTurkey]

This is a little old. EU is down a little, Korea up a lot.

Table 1: Nuclear Power (1993)

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).

[chimera]

The vapor core reactor design features an MHD first-stage power extraction, with more conventional stuff downstream of that. I suppose you could do MHD with an HTGR or other GCR concept, since the primary temperatures are up there.

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).

[jpl]

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.

It's not that difficult to understand once you come to the realization that their actual goal is to take down our country.

[Little Ray]

Actually, if you build fast breeders, they will actually produce fuel...

[WildTurkey]

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.

[Diddle E. Squat]

I dunno, creating more nuclear power plants would seem to be creating more terror targets. This may be one case where the risks(however small) outweigh the many benefits. I certainly wouldn't want a plant within 50 miles of my house. Guess we could build a bunch in the barren reaches of W. Texas, Nevada, and the Great Plains, but isn't long-distance transmission of electricity a big problem (inefficient)?

Am more in favor of coal plants. We've got plenty of low-sulphur coal here in the US, and new plants with the latest scrubber technology wouldn't affect air quality that much.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Actually, if you build fast breeders, they will actually produce fuel...

[WildTurkey]

I dunno, creating more nuclear power plants would seem to be creating more terror targets.

Perhaps we should all go crawl into a hole and that way minimize targets for the terrorists.</sarcasm>

[Final Authority]

Knowing as little of me as you do then why would you write that it indicates either a lack of familiarity or an agenda? If you asked the simple question, what do you mean by that, then I would have a better understanding of you and your understanding.

With respect to Seabrook, it is a financial disaster, for all sorts of reasons. I wrote in 1977 that this power plant would be exactly what it became, unnecessary and burdensome for the intended customer. The owners, knowing this, canceled the second reactor because they knew that the base couldn't absorb 2500 MW. This cancellation caused the price per kWh to increase. One of the reasons the power could be unnecessary is because of Quebec Hydro which has excess capacity and can sell power for about a third as much as it costs to produce it in Seabrook.

The original owners of Seabrook went bankrupt because even with high prices and high production they didn't generate enough income to even pay the interest on the project.The government can't let that happen so they came up with the idea of selling the unit at a price that would make sense for the new owners but then charging the customers for the bad decision as stranded costs. In NH we now have the highest costs for electricity in the nation. For residential users the cost per kWh exceeds $.25.

Since Seabrook, many new wood fired power plants have been built contributing about 12MW per plant. There were about 15 of these plants built in NH alone. When Seabrook was purchased by the new owners the regulators changed the way these wood fired plants could sell there power to the extent where it made sense to sell them to the new Seabrook owners so they could shut them down. It was cheaper to produce wood fired power than nuclear power but that didn't matter. There is now a smaller market for low grade timber which has negatively affected the timber industry because of this decision.

If it wasn't for the economics of the Seabrook project I would never have made a comment regarding Seabrook but there was no economics of scale, it was the reverse, it was too much in the wrong place, at the wrong time (high interest rates, Carter years).

I designed a mini computer system and the software to handle the document control for the building of the project in 1981. It was an engineering disaster to control so many documents. Many supporters of the project have stated that environment protesters were the reason that the plant ended up like the "Big Dig" in Boston, over budget and late. The real reason for the cost overruns was the same reason the Big Dig was over budget, mismanagement and trade union and political corruption. There are a million stories to tell but I do think that standardized designs and construction methods would have alleviated much of what ailed Seabrook.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Yeah, I knew someone would jump on my post with a trite knee-jerk hyperbole response.

But I have yet to see any definitive explanation of how nuclear plants can be completely secured against terrorist attacks. Until such concerns can be successfully refuted and public perception changed, those concerns will be the biggest obstacles to building nuke plants on a large scale.

One could use the same arguments against building more skyscrapers, but they are not that parallel. The risks in a skyscraper are primarily assumed by those choosing to enter it, while that is not the case if an incident causes a large radioactive release at a plant. I realize that a lot of the fear of radioactivity is overblown and its effects misunderstood by much of the public, but there are real risks involved, and the potential for significantly harmful affects over a relatively large area.

[WildTurkey]

Yeah, I knew someone would jump on my post with a trite knee-jerk hyperbole response.

It was not trite, knee-jerk nor hyperbole. If you want to the terrorist to win, STOP progress.

Sure there are dangers. But consider the panic if they let loose a dirty bomb in NYC. More would die from the rioting than if they shelled a nuclear power plant.

[Diddle E. Squat]

If you want to the terrorist to win, STOP progress.

Another trite, worn down, over-the-top, cop-out phrase. No one is talking about "STOPPING progress". But some of us are debating the merits and drawbacks of various options.

[WildTurkey]

But some of us are debating the merits and drawbacks of various options.

I saw no debate on any merits or drawbacks. I say that you would certainly not live close to one. Seems you are pretty dead-set against nuclear power. You said theis may be the ONE case where small risks outweigh greater benefits. If that is not false logic, I don't know what is. If you want to debate merits and drawbacks, then please do.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Go ahead and play your little semantics games. My post raised a clear concern, one that is a perceived risk by a large segment of the public, perhaps even a majority. Such perceptions at that scale affect the political viability of building more nuke plants, which is what is being proposed. You have posted nothing that refutes the concern.

Post something substantive, and I'll address it. Otherwise I'll leave you with the last yap.

[Little Ray]

You can also use the same arguements against tank farms, dams, grain silos (grain dust is very explosive!), natural gas tankers and National Guard armories.

If we need power we should build nukes. If terrorists attack them we should level their country of origin into glowing parking lots.