Posted on 05/20/2008 3:23:58 PM PDT by Delacon
I guess you missed the very beginning of reply #58. Sorry!!!
The following is NOT Classified; applies to virtually all saturated steam pressurized water reactors.
Power level in such reactors is adjusted with marveloulsly elegant simplicity.
Opening the throttles wider (and thus demanding more power to the turbines) lowers the steam pressure, and thus lowers steam temperature (saturated system) this lowers the temperature of primary water returning to the reactor; cooler water => more dense=> better moderation => drives up fission rate.
They made it sound like that, but I don't believe it. I always thought that the fuel costs were minimal and that the real cost of operating a Nuclear plant was the cost of compliance with regulations and up front cost of the facility which also has a lot of compliance load to it. Both of those go down the more you do them. And the more the public is open to the plants.
First, if you have nuclear and don't have gas, then nuclear it is whatever the efficiency. Second, with heat pumps electricity is not that inefficient any more.
Everybody’s jumpy these days and McMistakes mouth and all the stupid US Senators are makin all of us crazy!!!
1974 was 24 years ago. Technology advances, but Solomon's article does not mention, nor does he appear interested in finding out, whether modern nuclear reactors might have solved some of the problems associated with the mammoth plants from the disco era.
I just didn’t see it in time. You don’t need to be sorry. I was the one who didn’t percieve your post the way I should have. I appologize. I am sorry that I reacted the way I did, when I shouldn’t have.
You and I agree here. I think your post made sense too, once I understood it, so there’s no need for you to appologize at all.
Isn’t that the truth!
Well, as is usually the case, there were few facts in that article.
I don’t blame the author or any of the readers. I only know this stuff because I lived it. The author has been watching too much television.
Fun facts: Extremely radioactive stuff does NOT glow green. It glows blue. If you ever get radioactive enough to glow, you will have been dead for a while.
Also, a “critical” reactor is not a bad thing. The term “critical” only means the reactor is operating at a steady state, neither increasing power nor decreasing power.
Nukes can and ARE throttled back all the time. However to counter this moron's complaints there are so many excellent ways to use the off peak power such as back bay hydro plants, water desalination, ice storage for city chiller loops, hydrogen production and on and on.
This knucklehead is totally speaking out of his ass, and clearly has an agenda other than what is best for America
There’s lots of uranium around. For example, about 20 years ago, there was talk of a uranium mine being opened near Danville, VA. But then Three Mile Island happened, and the bottom dropped out of uranium prices.
As for the waste, we have Jimmy Carter to thank for that problem. Chem-Nuclear had a reprocessing plant ready to be licensed, but Carter nixed all reprocessing of fuel. When the fuel is removed from the reactor, about 60% of the original Uranium 235 is still in it. It just needs to be re-concentrated, and the nuclear poisons removed.
There’s lots of uranium around. For example, about 20 years ago, there was talk of a uranium mine being opened near Danville, VA. But then Three Mile Island happened, and the bottom dropped out of uranium prices.
As for the waste, we have Jimmy Carter to thank for that problem. Chem-Nuclear had a reprocessing plant ready to be licensed, but Carter nixed all reprocessing of fuel. When the fuel is removed from the reactor, about 60% of the original Uranium 235 is still in it. It just needs to be re-concentrated, and the nuclear poisons removed.
Sorry about the double post. How’d that happen?
I’m pingin “snopercod” just in case he’s still out there in North Carolina somewhere. This was his favorite subject here on FR and I miss him bein here!!!
Plus, even on a crash basis, with environmentalists shot on sight, it would take a couple of decades, maybe 3 even, to get the US to 40-50% generating capacity supplied by nuclear. Doesn't this guy think we may have more electrical load connected to the grid by then?
When we mothball our older plants, regardless of what they burned (coal, gas, oil, taking down hyrdro generating dams, etc.) many of those could be replaced with nuclear. Does this guy think we won't de-commission any generating plants in the next 30 years?
Finally, the heat from the nuclear pile heats water to steam, and the steam turns a turbine. To "turn down" the reactor from 100%, you just vent off some steam prior to feeding it to the turbine.
Crap article.
He’s still active, but hasn’t posted since June 2005.
Bingo!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.