Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Fri 15 Dec 2017, 16:35:28

Far from being financial burdens, nuclear commercial power plants have long been profit centers for the utilities that own them. Nor have any decommisioned plants ever been abandonned or been any type of hazard for surrounding populations.

If you want to understand some real hazards, look into the management and mismanagement of coal ash from commercial power plants. They literally are the most dangerous form of power generation. Meanwhile fools obsess over nuclear power, in truth the safest by a huge factor.

The numbers say that coal kills ONE MILLION TIMES as many people as nuclear. If you know something we should be considering, or a better way of measuring safety than counting actual human casualties from energy generation, please share.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4409
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby GHung » Fri 15 Dec 2017, 17:05:04

KaiserJeep wrote:Far from being financial burdens, nuclear commercial power plants have long been profit centers for the utilities that own them. Nor have any decommisioned plants ever been abandonned or been any type of hazard for surrounding populations.

If you want to understand some real hazards, look into the management and mismanagement of coal ash from commercial power plants. They literally are the most dangerous form of power generation. Meanwhile fools obsess over nuclear power, in truth the safest by a huge factor.

The numbers say that coal kills ONE MILLION TIMES as many people as nuclear. If you know something we should be considering, or a better way of measuring safety than counting actual human casualties from energy generation, please share.


Assumes BAU for a long, long time.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 2073
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby onlooker » Fri 15 Dec 2017, 20:09:23

Assumes BAU for a long, long time.----
That is the conundrum isn't. Can Nuclear exist safely within the context of a declining and chaotic downturn of modern civilization. I am persuaded by Tanada that Nuclear could have been a real effective answer to humanities energy needs . But the caveat is that serious financial turmoil seems to be on the horizon and in this context it Nuclear may not be all that feasible
Last edited by onlooker on Fri 15 Dec 2017, 21:13:49, edited 1 time in total.
The Big Economic Plunge is approaching
User avatar
onlooker
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Fri 15 Dec 2017, 21:03:23

onlooker wrote:Assumes BAU for a long, long time.----
That is the conundrum isn't. Can Nuclear exist safely within the context of a declining and chaotic downturn of modern civilization. I am persuaded by Tanada that Nuclear could have been a real effective answer to humanities energy. But the caveat is that serious financial turmoil seems to be on the horizon and in this context it Nuclear may not be all that feasible


Don't ya get it? Rockhead educated us that 99.999% of the populace believes in fake money and doesn't concern itself with peakoil.com

What kind of energy system can fake money buy?

Nothing, of course.
Plan B is now being implemented: It is called Looting.
StarvingLion
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1048
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Fri 15 Dec 2017, 21:11:54

I am persuaded by Tanada that Nuclear could have been a real effective answer to humanities energy.


I guess nobody told the idiots in Humanities that combustion is required for modern civilization. Nuclear doesn't solve any problems. Nuclear like "Renewables" is simply a parallel source of electricity that is no longer affordable. It can't replace coal, or gas or anything combustible.
Plan B is now being implemented: It is called Looting.
StarvingLion
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1048
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby onlooker » Fri 15 Dec 2017, 21:20:09

Don't ya get it? Rockhead educated us that 99.999% of the populace believes in fake money and doesn't concern itself with peakoil.com

What kind of energy system can fake money buy?

Nothing, of course.-----You are preaching to the choir SL. I am with you, perhaps I should have said devastating and not just serious
And a devastating financial collapse means NO transition of any kind
So, keep up the good work Starve, showing what a sham of a world economy, we have now!
The Big Economic Plunge is approaching
User avatar
onlooker
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Fri 15 Dec 2017, 21:29:20

The EconoDunces retarded notion of Substitution isn't working very well....

Oil Industry: Bankrupt
Shale Gas "industry": Always was Bankrupt
Bird Choppers: Bad Loan Industry
PV Solar: Joke beyond Joke
Nuclear: Spinning its wheels or going splat.

Forget about the coal car (ev). You're all be loaded up in trains headed to closed cities in which people enter but do now come out. A zillion bad loans cannot be wrong.

Image
Plan B is now being implemented: It is called Looting.
StarvingLion
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1048
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 15 Dec 2017, 23:03:04

GHung wrote:
Tanada wrote:
GHung wrote:Sounds like Tanada is saying it's no big deal if these sites are not cleaned up and nuke plants are not properly decommissioned. Turn them off and walk away?


What do you imagine happens when you walk away from a defueled reactor either before or after decomissioning? You have a large steel vessel that has a mild radioactive output and a lot of concrete some of which may reasonably be classified as also emitting more radioactivity than it did when it was freshly manufactured. That is it. The radiation levels are low enough after a few weeks that workers can walk within meters of the reactor vessel in complete safety, and that vessel is encased in a several meter thick concrete shell. Close the door and walk away, nothing much is going to happen within the lifetime of the materials present.


Oh,,,, and who is going to pay the de-fueling costs if everything has crashed and there's no money for it?


If everything crashes that fast then you will have much bigger issues to worry about than whether the nuclear plant next door or three states over has been defueled and placed in cold shut down mode.

Provided things do not collapse in overnight fashion scramming the reactor and keeping the cooling system operating for 90-120 days even without defueling the reactor vessel will effectively make the system 'safe' as in the residual heat will no longer be a threat to the integrity of the fuel elements or pressure vessel.

Ceramic fuel pellets are frickin hardy material and so long as they get the minimum cooling needed during the few weeks when it is critical they become safe to mostly ignore after that point in time. Sure they are still radioactive and you shouldn't carry them around in your pocket, but they are locked inside a thick steel pressure vessel in water, not laying around in pieces small enough for some foolish person to pick up and carry away. It takes a lot of energy to breech that reactor vessel, break open the fuel bundle and then cut up a fuel rod into small enough pieces to carry away by hand. At the same time those elements are dangerous they are also physically quite hot, as in hot enough to cause some serious burns if you pick them up in your hands, which makes them even more difficult to extract, break open and carry off in small pieces. By the time 18 months has passed from shut down they are no longer in need of water cooling, simple air convection will be enough to keep them from warping and losing their zirconium cladding.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14349
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Sat 16 Dec 2017, 17:45:24

Keep building nuclear reactors and the lights will go off for sure. Keep building "renewables" and the lights will go off for sure. This nuclear project is going splat

The lights are going off.

http://www.thestate.com/news/politics-g ... 40639.html

High power bills due to bungled nuclear project spark showdown at PSC

Quote:
Saying state officials are misguided in seeking to cut power bills for a bungled atomic energy project, SCE&G spent hours Tuesday explaining why it thinks the rate cut would hurt customers more than it would help. “There are real limits to what we can do here without causing the company to become insolvent,’’ SCE&G attorney Belton Zeigler said, noting that the power bill reduction could cost the utility $450 million annually and bring it to the brink of bankruptcy. But the company’s pleas, made during a hearing before state utility regulators, drew almost no sympathy from interest groups and state agencies that said people shouldn’t keep paying for a nuclear expansion project that won’t be built. The average residential customer pays SCE&G about $27 each month for the failed V.C. Summer reactor project. Big industrial users pay even more. All told, the nuclear charge adds up to about 18 percent of a customer’s bill.
Plan B is now being implemented: It is called Looting.
StarvingLion
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1048
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Sat 16 Dec 2017, 17:49:53

Think nuclear reactors are possible in the House of Saud? Hahahahaha....imagine long pipelines carrying meltdown preventing water from the coasts to the interior where the reactors can only be. Its suicide. They won't build a single nuclear reactor. SA is bankrupt.

http://lobelog.com/u-s-to-boost-saudi-n ... velopment/

U.S. To Boost Saudi Nuclear Power Development

Quote:
Another potential issue for Saudi Arabia, regardless of which contractor it selects, is where to put any reactors it decides to build. A nuclear plant requires an abundant supply of cooling water, which Saudi Arabia does not have except on its coasts. The country’s most prominent geophysicist, Dr. Abdullah al-Amri of King Saud University, argued in a 2011 interview that neither coast is suitable–the Red Sea coast because it is potentially volcanic, the Gulf coast because it is sedimentary and unstable. Al-Amri said there are geologically suitable sites in the vast interior, but cooling water would have to be piped to them. He said the government does not want to do that because a pipeline supplying cooling water to an active nuclear reactor in the sparsely-populated interior would be an easy target for terrorists. Nevertheless, Saudi Arabia is committed–at least on paper–to constructing as many as 16 reactors by about 2040.
Plan B is now being implemented: It is called Looting.
StarvingLion
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1048
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby pstarr » Sat 16 Dec 2017, 18:14:32

Starve, you have to stop confusing these important issue with facts :-x 8)
/sarc
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26768
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby Subjectivist » Sat 16 Dec 2017, 22:53:01

When he posts some actual facts I will take them into account. All I have seen so far is hysterical science denial expressed as babbling panic.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4242
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Mon 18 Dec 2017, 20:50:27

They are going out of bidness.

https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2017 ... costs.html

Japan power companies face surging nuclear fuel recycling costs

Quote:
The cost of recycling spent nuclear fuel has surged since Japan started using such fuel in 1999, Kyodo News learned Saturday, adding to questions about the economics of nuclear fuel reprocessing. Japan already is struggling with the sustainability of nuclear power generation using recycled fuel called mixed oxide, or MOX, which has resulted in a stockpile of nearly 50 tons of plutonium, with only a few reactors currently using such fuel. The MOX fuel is produced by reprocessing spent nuclear fuel and reusing extracted plutonium and uranium. Japanese power companies send their spent fuel to France for reprocessing. According to data from the Finance Ministry and other sources, the price of one MOX fuel unit imported in 1999 by the predecessor company of Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc. was 230 million yen ($2 million). The price of the recycle fuel Kansai Electric Power Co. bought in September this year exceeded 1 billion yen. While power companies do not disclose MOX fuel prices, sources familiar with nuclear fuel recycling business said the price includes the cost of transport, private security service and insurance. With many nuclear plants shut down due to safety concerns raised by the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, only three nuclear plants -- two Kansai Electric reactors and one Shikoku Electric Power Co. reactor -- currently use MOX fuel in so-called pluthermal power generation. The pluthermal project is the only way for Japan to consume plutonium produced in the process of fuel recycling, and the country's plutonium stockpile has declined only slightly after the restart of those three reactors which can run on MOX fuel. Japan's holding of plutonium, which can be used to make nuclear weapons, has caused international concern. Japan is the only non-nuclear weapons state in the world that is carrying on with a commercial spent fuel reprocessing program.
Plan B is now being implemented: It is called Looting.
StarvingLion
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1048
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

A Tale of Two Nuclear Plants

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Tue 09 Jan 2018, 19:19:45

A tale of two nuclear plants on Lake Michigan (all info from Wikipedia):

1) Kewaunee Power station was the 4th built in Wisconsin and the 44th built in the USA. Construction began August 6, 1968, the plant was commissioned on June 16, 1974. Operation was uneventful, there was a minor water leak on April 27, 2006, although no radioactivity was released and the plant remained operational. In 2008, application was made to the NRC for an extension of the original operating license for another 20 years, this was granted, the plant could have remained in operation until 2033, and further extensions could have been applied for and probably would have been granted.

On October 22, 2012, Dominion Resources announced they would shut down and decommission the plant in Mid-2013. Dominion's chairman and CEO said "the decision was based purely on economics. Dominion was not able to move forward with our plan to grow our nuclear fleet in the Midwest to take advantage of economies of scale". Lower natural gas costs and resultant lower electricity prices created an electricity market in which the plant could not compete. The plant came offline permanently on May 7, 2013.[2][5] Plans for decommissioning are uncertain: as a private owner rather than a public utility, Dominion cannot rely on charges imposed on utility customers by state regulators; however, the firm has a substantial reserve fund earmarked for this purpose and a cause of action against the Department of Energy for failure to remove spent fuel. There is also the chance that the energy market might improve due to economic or political changes.[2]

The SAFSTOR (SAFe STORage) nuclear decommissioning option was selected. During SAFSTOR, the de-fuelled plant is monitored for up to sixty years before complete decontamination and dismantling of the site, to a condition where nuclear licensing is no longer required. During the storage interval, some of the radioactive contaminants of the reactor and power plant will decay, which will reduce the quantity of radioactive material to be removed during the final decontamination phase. A reduced workforce will move fuel assemblies from the reactor into the spent fuel pool.[6]

Image
Construction cost: $776.15M (2007 dollars). One 566 MW PWR which averaged 84% of rated capacity for 40 years and could probably have done so for another 40 years after that, assuming a second 20-year extensoin had been applied for and granted. Lifetime average annual power output was 3,752GWh. This was more expensive than natural gas fired power plants, not counting any expenses arising from the carbon dioxide produced by burning gas, of course.

The reactor was defuelled and the usable fuel is stored in the "Moon Pool" of the nearby (and still operational) Point Beach Nuclear Plant. The reactor main and emergency cooling systems remain operational, and lake water is being circulated contunuously. Even if the station were to be abandonned, there is no longer any need to actively cool the defuelled reactor core. Tons of cooled spent fuel rods still exist at the site in buried dry cask storage, awaiting the US Government to fulfill it's promise of permanent storage - or recycling as new fuel.

Kewaunee cannot be safely reactivated and re-licensed. It falls short of current requirements for a new NRC license, and cannot be safely modified to current spec for decades to come.

2) The Point Beach Nuclear Plant is located a few miles South of the decommissioned Kewaunee plant. Again Wikipedia:

On November 28, 1966, following Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSCW) endorsement and a brief public hearing, Alfred Gruhl, Glenn Reed, and Sol Burstein[4] turned the first symbolic spades of dirt for the official ground-breaking. In May, 1967, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), predecessor to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), issued the official construction permit (number 32) for Point Beach Unit 1. The Unit 2 construction permit (number 47) was issued approximately a year later.[4]

On October 5, 1970, the AEC issued its full-term, full-power Operating License (DPR-24) for Point Beach Unit 1. The loading fuel into the reactor commenced almost immediately. On November 2, 1970, operators achieved initial criticality, with the nuclear-powered electricity being produced for days later, on November 6. Full commercial service was reached on December 21, 1970, just 49 months from the initial groundbreaking ceremony. After delays from nuclear power opponents, Unit 2 was granted a full-term, full-power operating license (DPR-27) on March 8, 1973, almost 1 1/2 years behind the original schedule.[4]

Due to steam generator tube degradation and failures caused by intergranular stress corrosion cracking, Unit 1 was operated at approximately 75-80% of full power from December, 1979 until October 1983, when replacement steam generators were installed.[5] The Unit 2 steam generators were replaced in 1996-97.[6]

In 2005, the approved the license renewal application for the Point Beach plant, extending the operating license from forty years to sixty.[7][8] in 2011, the NRC approved a 17% increase in power output (a.k.a. extended power uprate) from both units. This entailed significant upgrades to several plant systems and components, including safety-related pumps and valves, as well as the turbine-generator sets.[9]


Present nameplate capacity at Point Beach is 1182 MW. Average annual energy produced is 10,153 GWh, cheaper than natural gas. Since going online it has averaged 98.06% of capacity, and has a perfect safety record with no radioactives released. Several failures have occurred in the (multiple redundant) steam turbines, and the re-designed units are proving considerably better than the originals.
Image
Conclusion: Both of these plants had unblemished safety records with no nuclear accidents. Both are/were regarded as good places to work by the locals. One is profitable because it has twin reactors and multiple turbine generator sets. The smaller of the two had essentially the same expenses for security and operations, but could not produce enough power to compete with fracked natural gas.

There are some beautiful beaches near to and even between these two power stations, and the area is cheap and uncrowded, and I'm interested. I'd much rather live near to one or both of these sites than any of several coal plants in the state, all of which have heavily contaminated the areas around them with toxics (including radioactives) from the stacks. This legacy of coal is a major problem from coast to coast, but mainly in the NorthEast.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4409
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Recent Developments in Advanced Reactors in China, Russia

Unread postby AdamB » Tue 09 Jan 2018, 20:00:05

China Reported to Commit $3 billion to Development of Molten Salt Reactor Designs. China Begins Construction of a 600 MW Fast Reactor. Taishan 1 EPR Startup Delayed to 2018. Russia to Build Fast Reactor Fuel Plant for Brest-OD-300 Reactor. English language media reports indicate that the Chinese Academy of Sciences has announced plans to invest $3 billion (USD) over the next two decades in development of molten salt reactors of various designs. A first order objective is reported to be the kickoff of design and development of a first of a kind thorium molten salt reactor in 2020 in the city of Wuwei in Gansu province. Commercial development is targeted for the early 2030s. The program is called the Thorium-Breeding Molten Salt Reactor (TMSR). According to the media reports, the R&D program has two major components and both are tied to


Recent Developments in Advanced Reactors in China, Russia
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 3757
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Recent Developments in Advanced Reactors in China, Russi

Unread postby dissident » Fri 12 Jan 2018, 17:10:33

AdamB wrote:
China Reported to Commit $3 billion to Development of Molten Salt Reactor Designs. China Begins Construction of a 600 MW Fast Reactor. Taishan 1 EPR Startup Delayed to 2018. Russia to Build Fast Reactor Fuel Plant for Brest-OD-300 Reactor. English language media reports indicate that the Chinese Academy of Sciences has announced plans to invest $3 billion (USD) over the next two decades in development of molten salt reactors of various designs. A first order objective is reported to be the kickoff of design and development of a first of a kind thorium molten salt reactor in 2020 in the city of Wuwei in Gansu province. Commercial development is targeted for the early 2030s. The program is called the Thorium-Breeding Molten Salt Reactor (TMSR). According to the media reports, the R&D program has two major components and both are tied to


Recent Developments in Advanced Reactors in China, Russia


Lead cooled reactors are unique. Lead is transparent to neutron radiation and lead does not boil below 1740 C. But lead is very corrosive on coolant pipes (it strips iron regardless of the alloy used). This is why lead-bismuth was used in the Soviet navy fast reactors. It seems there is a substantial advantage from using lead given the hassle. I suppose there is more efficient and complete "burning" of waste.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5017
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby dohboi » Fri 12 Jan 2018, 20:48:27

Armed raid on nuclear workers' housing raises fears over Brazil's two reactors

This kind of thing will occur more and more frequently with worse and worse outcome as we go further and further down the rabbit whole of societal collapse...

then all the wet dreams of 'clean, free, un-meterable nuke power' will rapidly turn into horrific living nightmares...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... ctor-armed
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16934
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Recent Developments in Advanced Reactors in China, Russi

Unread postby Subjectivist » Fri 12 Jan 2018, 20:55:39

dissident wrote:
AdamB wrote:
China Reported to Commit $3 billion to Development of Molten Salt Reactor Designs. China Begins Construction of a 600 MW Fast Reactor. Taishan 1 EPR Startup Delayed to 2018. Russia to Build Fast Reactor Fuel Plant for Brest-OD-300 Reactor. English language media reports indicate that the Chinese Academy of Sciences has announced plans to invest $3 billion (USD) over the next two decades in development of molten salt reactors of various designs. A first order objective is reported to be the kickoff of design and development of a first of a kind thorium molten salt reactor in 2020 in the city of Wuwei in Gansu province. Commercial development is targeted for the early 2030s. The program is called the Thorium-Breeding Molten Salt Reactor (TMSR). According to the media reports, the R&D program has two major components and both are tied to


Recent Developments in Advanced Reactors in China, Russia


Lead cooled reactors are unique. Lead is transparent to neutron radiation and lead does not boil below 1740 C. But lead is very corrosive on coolant pipes (it strips iron regardless of the alloy used). This is why lead-bismuth was used in the Soviet navy fast reactors. It seems there is a substantial advantage from using lead given the hassle. I suppose there is more efficient and complete "burning" of waste.


Does lead corrde Titanium? I am thinking maybe a lead pool reactor with Titanium coolant pipes moving liquid zinc coolant from the core to the steam generator/heat exchanger.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4242
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Fri 12 Jan 2018, 21:36:59

Kalifornia is on the brink of total collapse...

California’s last nuclear plant to close after unanimous vote by regulators

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/art ... 491203.php

Quote:
California’s last nuclear power plant — Diablo Canyon, whose contentious birth helped shape the modern environmental movement — will close in 2025, state utility regulators decided Thursday. The unanimous vote by the California Public Utilities Commission will likely bring an end to nuclear energy’s long history in the state. State law forbids building more nuclear plants in California until the federal government creates a long-term solution for dealing with their waste, a goal that remains elusive despite decades of effort. The decision comes even as California expands its fight against global warming. Owned by Pacific Gas and Electric Co., Diablo Canyon is the state’s largest power plant, supplying 9 percent of California’s electricity while producing no greenhouse gases. “With this decision, we chart a new energy future by phasing out nuclear power here in California,” said commission President Michael Picker. “We’ve looked hard at all the arguments, and we agree the time has come.” Diablo Canyon’s planned shutdown is the latest blow to America’s nuclear power industry, beset by plant closures and the cancellation of proposed reactors.
Plan B is now being implemented: It is called Looting.
StarvingLion
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1048
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Fri 12 Jan 2018, 21:39:34

People, Australia canny do it.

Australia has 'missed the boat' on nuclear power

http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-econ ... 4yyeg.html

Quote:
The Minerals Council of Australia has called for the country's prohibition on nuclear power to be lifted. But both critics and supporters see little future for large-scale nuclear power in Australia’s energy mix. The man who once famously called for 50 nuclear reactors across Australia, nuclear physicist and NBN chairman Ziggy Switkowski, says "the window for gigawatt-scale nuclear has closed".
Plan B is now being implemented: It is called Looting.
StarvingLion
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1048
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests