McCain's French kiss

Financial Post ^ | May 13, 2008 | Lawrence Solomon

[SierraWasp]

I guess you missed the very beginning of reply #58. Sorry!!!

[Castlebar]

This sounds odd to me...i was on nuclear subs...i’m pretty sure you can adjust the output of a reactor by the rods.

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.

[DannyTN]

"My take though from the article is that nuclear power is only economically efficient and competitive when plants operate at maximum power"

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.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

The off peak sale objection is ridiculous. By the time 10 or 15 new nukes are on line, there will be just that many fewer coal and oil plants taken off line.

[AndyJackson]

At great expense, French homes were converted to inefficient electric home heating.

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.

[SierraWasp]

Everybody’s jumpy these days and McMistakes mouth and all the stupid US Senators are makin all of us crazy!!!

[Plutarch]

By 1974, three mammoth nuclear plants were begun and by 1977, another five.

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.

[DoughtyOne]

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.

[DoughtyOne]

Isn’t that the truth!

[wolfpat]

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.

[Boiler Plate]

Nobody but this idiot author thinks having 80% of our generating capacity in nuclear is a bad idea. The reason nukes are run flat out is because they are the cheapest most economical source of power except hydro. Unlike hydro you don't have to pray for rain. Hoover dam is running about half capacity for obvious reasons.

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

[wolfpat]

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.

[wolfpat]

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.

[wolfpat]

Sorry about the double post. How’d that happen?

[SierraWasp]

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!!!

[willgolfforfood]

Crap article. We could TRADE Mexico for electricity for oil. We'll always need oil, even if the internal combustion engine is superseded. Same with Canada.

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.

[Nuc1]

Just keep Tave in the green band. LOL.

[hinckley buzzard]

I wouldn't base a decision on this kind of narrow analysis. The author can quibble about the 80% number but the fact remains that there is major room for 24/7 power generation to be taken over by nuclear. The concept of vigorously adding to nuclear generation is sound. In addition, there are operating plants reaching the end of their life cycle and needing to be replaced-- if not by new, more efficient and safer nuclear plants, then by something else.

[DoughtyOne]

He’s still active, but hasn’t posted since June 2005.

[Popman]

The real wet blanket is the reality that hits when people realize that we can’t build a single oil refinery let alone hundreds of nuke plants.

Bingo!