Seriously thoughtful Will more nuclear power plants be built?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

There is a part of West Virginia that is on fire and will be on fire for about a century as the coal reserves under ground are burnt up. It is releasing CO2 as we speak. A fire started in a deep mine and got out of control. The mining company tried flooding the mine, but there were too many holes and not enough water. They finally decided to abandon themine and let it burn.

There's another town called Centralia in Pennsynvalia which had to be abandoned when a coal seam was set on fire in 1962. It's estimated that it will burn for 250 years.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia,_Pennsylvania

[mjh215]

I have often thought we (the US) should start building new plants. If for no better reason then that at some point I'm certain we'll need replacements for our current aging ones. I have to plead ignorance on the topic of designs and just how much an in place reactor can be upgraded and maintained as well as if the efficiency has increased through the years. But given that our newest plant was started in the mid-1970's I really have to think that there have been advances since then.

If we are going to have them anyway, why not have the most efficient model with all the latest safety bells and whistles?

-MJ

[Greg Anos]

US nuclear power plant design has been completely non-standard. Every plant unique. That's no way to bring down costs. What is needed is a standard plant that can be mass produced...

[YGG-]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

There is a part of West Virginia that is on fire and will be on fire for about a century as the coal reserves under ground are burnt up. It is releasing CO2 as we speak. A fire started in a deep mine and got out of control. The mining company tried flooding the mine, but there were too many holes and not enough water. They finally decided to abandon themine and let it burn.

Ouch ! That's bad! Then again, it doesn't release toxic nuclear end products in the wind; but it does sound worrying.

[pshrynk]

Originally Posted by YGG-

Ouch ! That's bad! Then again, it doesn't release toxic nuclear end products in the wind; but it does sound worrying.

No, just the usual toxic combustion products...

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by YGG-

Ouch ! That's bad! Then again, it doesn't release toxic nuclear end products in the wind; but it does sound worrying.

Not true! Various toxic product are in naturally occuring coal, some of the radioactive. That's why there are now scrubber on US coal power plants. Thing like mercury, cadmium, a wee amount of uranium, among others. All of which are cheerfully ending up in the wind from burning coal mines....

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by YGG-

Ouch ! That's bad! Then again, it doesn't release toxic nuclear end products in the wind; but it does sound worrying.

Actually, it does. The output of coal plants is radioactive. I wouldn't want to live downwind of one.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drib

The construction of nuclear power plants has virtually stopped, due to regulatory redtape, safety issues, and world economies.

Perhaps, but not stopped altogether. See this article.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=89169837

As a matter of fact one is being built (planned) in Fla not far from me. This directly affects me. We have been paying for it on our electric bill for quite a while now. I am not a direct customer of progress energy but Tampa Electric buys power from them. Also, just last year there were all kinds of hearings trying to stop the addition of more high tension transmission lines that would go right through (just about) my back yard. (I think they have decided on another route, slightly longer but non-residential.)

The whole project is supposed to cost about $20Billion and bring 3000 well paid jobs to the area

http://www.progress-energy.com/about...e.asp?id=20482

While I don't think nuclear is the whole answer I think it is an important part of it. I also think solar can play a big part here to... has anyone seen the grand solar plan?

BOb

[ahammer]

saw this a while back maybe somthing like this is what we sould be looking at. could not find anything newer so it must not be off the ground yet or may have been scraped by now.

Toshiba has developed a new class of micro size Nuclear Reactors that is designed to power individual apartment buildings or city blocks. The new reactor, which is only 20 feet by 6 feet, could change everything for small remote communities, small businesses or even a group of neighbors who are fed up with the power companies and want more control over their energy needs.

The 200 kilowatt Toshiba designed reactor is engineered to be fail-safe and totally automatic and will not overheat. Unlike traditional nuclear reactors the new micro reactor uses no control rods to initiate the reaction. The new revolutionary technology uses reservoirs of liquid lithium-6, an isotope that is effective at absorbing neutrons. The Lithium-6 reservoirs are connected to a vertical tube that fits into the reactor core. The whole whole process is self sustaining and can last for up to 40 years, producing electricity for only 5 cents per kilowatt hour, about half the cost of grid energy.

Toshiba expects to install the first reactor in Japan in 2008 and to begin marketing the new system in Europe and America in 2009.

from dec 2007
http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/...ar-12.17b.html

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Actually, it does. The output of coal plants is radioactive. I wouldn't want to live downwind of one.

The amount of radiation is very small. The reason that coal power stations are now required to have "scrubbers" is almost entirely due to substances like suphur dioxide, which leads to "acid rain" (which is destroying a large part of America's wilderness areas). The radiation is negligible compared to the natural background radiation you're emersed in all the time.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The amount of radiation is very small. The reason that coal power stations are now required to have "scrubbers" is almost entirely due to substances like suphur dioxide, which leads to "acid rain" (which is destroying a large part of America's wilderness areas). The radiation is negligible compared to the natural background radiation you're emersed in all the time.

Yes, but so it the actual radiation released by nuclear power plants, as opposed to the perceived releases...

[DixieGal]

My community is 15 miles outside of Bham in an older town. I live near coal mines, and in its heyday, the whole town economy ran on coal mines. Even today with very much reduced mining, the window frames and such get coated with sticky black coal dust.

This is the air we breathe every day. I don't expect to die of black lung, like my grandfather, but still, coal dust is in me.

I know that fewer toxins are in the air with nuclear. Nuclear provides nice cheap electricity. Our power bills average $55 per month. Nuclear is safe, for the most part, and especially compared to the tragic mine accidents that happen every few years.

I like nuclear and would approve of another plant in my state if it would help clean up the environment and produce even cheaper electricity.



Question: Does anyone know how much of Spain's electricity is provided by wind? They have a lot of windmill farms.

[HarryT]

I don't know how much electricity Spain produced from wind farms, but every EU country has committed to producing 10% of its electricity from "renewable" sources (wind, wave, solar, etc) by, I think, 2020. The trouble with wind, of course, is that (obviously!) it's not always windy, so you can't use it for your "base load" generation capacity. Nuclear power really is the only large-scale power-generation technology that doesn't emit greenhouse gases, unless you happen to be in one of the relatively few places that can use hydroelectric or geothermal generation.

[HarryT]

Interesting article about wind power in Spain here:

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

It seems that Spain leads the world in wind power generation, in terms of percentage of generating capacity. I didn't know that until now!

[DixieGal]

Thanks for the article - that was quick research! I noticed it says Spain is 3rd for wind power generation behind the US and Germany. However, I wonder how the percentages of total power compare? We are so big that our wind energy sort of gets lost in the crowd. So what I'm wondering is how we compare to Spain and Germany percentage-wise? It says Spain is 21.4%. I can just about guarantee nothing here is anything close to 21%.

Tim and I almost invested in wind energy last year. Instead, we went with a new biofuel plant that was opening in Iowa. The company tanked and took our money with it!