China’s Nuclear Power Capacity Set to Overtake U.S. Within Decade

[elektra]

maMOOT, you are liar, about what I said, and about what China has accomplished.

No, I was mistaken. I didn't see the more recent article.

Now, will you admit you were mistaken when you said "The USA can not make a reactor vessel"?

And will you admit that your claim that US heavy industry was all rebuilt in China was total crap?

Prove we make reactor vessels. I bet you can't do it. We make zero commercial reactors, zero.

We have no Heavy Industry, maMOOT!

We can not even machine reactor heads, last I checked that was either done in Cambridge Ontario or overseas. That would be B&W Canada.

Remember, maMOOT, we are speaking about Heavy Industry. If you want to include something else that you think makes you look smart, go ahead, but first, provide the link that proves your point. You know, links, those things you demand of others.

 

[mamooth]

Prove we make reactor vessels. I bet you can't do it. We make zero commercial reactors, zero.

So Navy reactor vessels aren't actually reactor vessels?

 

[elektra]

Prove we make reactor vessels. I bet you can't do it. We make zero commercial reactors, zero.

So Navy reactor vessels aren't actually reactor vessels?

Moron says what? "Navy reactor vessels". What in the fuck are "Navy reactor vessels"? Can you draw a picture of one, you idiot!

 

[Old Rocks]

The nuclear boogieman put forward by the anti-nuke people has scared everyone away. Finally, a few nukes are being built in the US. Accidents have not directly killed anyone in the US. The older nukes were built when we still had few ideas of how nuclear power should be handled and the dangers involved. New designs have made them much, much safer than before. We cripple ourselves by worrying about nuclear waste (what if someone in 2897 finds the waste!), terrible scenarios about accidents and sabotage (what if a meteorite hits them?). Nuclear plants solve a lot of problems. But the boogieman still holds sway.

Crap, but you are ignorant.

SL-1 - Wikipedia

This article is about The SL-1 Nuclear Reactor. For the Nortel Meridian SL1 PBX, see Nortel Meridian.
Coordinates:

43.518233°N 112.823727°W

SL-1
Location in the United States

SL-1
Location in Idaho, west of Idaho Falls

November 29, 1961: The SL-1 reactor vessel being removed from the reactor building, which acted substantially like the containment building used in modern nuclear facilities. The 60-ton Manitowoc Model 3900 crane had a 5.25-inch (13.3 cm) steel shield with a 9-inch (23 cm) thick lead glass window to protect the operator.
The SL-1, or Stationary Low-Power Reactor Number One, was a United States Army experimental nuclear power reactor which underwent a steam explosion and meltdown on January 3, 1961, killing its three operators. The direct cause was the improper withdrawal of the central control rod, responsible for absorbing neutrons in the reactor core. The event is the only reactor incident in the United States which resulted in immediate fatalities.[1] The incident released about 80 curies (3.0 TBq) of iodine-131,[2] which was not considered significant due to its location in the remote high desert of eastern Idaho. About 1,100 curies (41 TBq) of fission products were released into the atmosphere.[3]

The facility, located at the National Reactor Testing Station (NRTS) approximately 40 miles (64 km) west of Idaho Falls, was part of the Army Nuclear Power Program and was known as the Argonne Low Power Reactor (ALPR) during its design and build phase. It was intended to provide electrical power and heat for small, remote military facilities, such as radar sites near the Arctic Circle, and those in the DEW Line.[4] The design power was 3 MW (thermal), but some 4.7 MW tests were performed in the months prior to the accident. Operating power was 200 kW electrical and 400 kW thermal for space heating.

During the incident the core power level reached nearly 20 GW in just four milliseconds, precipitating the steam explosion

 

[Old Rocks]

Prove we make reactor vessels. I bet you can't do it. We make zero commercial reactors, zero.

So Navy reactor vessels aren't actually reactor vessels?

Moron says what? "Navy reactor vessels". What in the fuck are "Navy reactor vessels"? Can you draw a picture of one, you idiot!

navy reactor vessels - Google Search:

 

[Old Rocks]

Nuclear power in the United States - Wikipedia

Over-commitment and cancellations[edit]
See also: List of canceled nuclear plants in the United States

Net summer electrical generation capacity of US nuclear power plants, 1949-2011

Average capacity factor of US nuclear power plants, 1957-2011
By the mid-1970s it became clear that nuclear power would not grow nearly as quickly as once believed. Cost overruns were sometimes a factor of ten above original industry estimates, and became a major problem. For the 75 nuclear power reactors built from 1966 to 1977, cost overruns averaged 207 percent. Opposition and problems were galvanized by the Three Mile Island accident in 1979.[30]

Over-commitment to nuclear power brought about the financial collapse of the Washington Public Power Supply System, a public agency which undertook to build five large nuclear power plants in the 1970s. By 1983, cost overruns and delays, along with a slowing of electricity demand growth, led to cancellation of two WPPSS plants and a construction halt on two others. Moreover, WPPSS defaulted on $2.25 billion of municipal bonds, which is one of the largest municipal bond defaults in U.S. history. The court case that followed took nearly a decade to resolve.[31][32][33]

Eventually, more than 120 reactor orders were cancelled,[34] and the construction of new reactors ground to a halt. Al Gore has commented on the historical record and reliability of nuclear power in the United States:

Of the 253 nuclear power reactors originally ordered in the United States from 1953 to 2008, 48 percent were canceled, 11 percent were prematurely shut down, 14 percent experienced at least a one-year-or-more outage, and 27 percent are operating without having a year-plus outage. Thus, only about one fourth of those ordered, or about half of those completed, are still operating and have proved relatively reliable.[35]

Amory Lovins has also commented on the historical record of nuclear power in the United States:

Of all 132 U.S. nuclear plants built (52% of the 253 originally ordered), 21% were permanently and prematurely closed due to reliability or cost problems, while another 27% have completely failed for a year or more at least once. The surviving U.S. nuclear plants produce ~90% of their full-time full-load potential, but even they are not fully dependable. Even reliably operating nuclear plants must shut down, on average, for 39 days every 17 months for refueling and maintenance, and unexpected failures do occur too.[36]

A cover story in the February 11, 1985, issue of Forbes magazine commented on the overall management of the nuclear power program in the United States:

The failure of the U.S. nuclear power program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster on a monumental scale … only the blind, or the biased, can now think that the money has been well spent. It is a defeat for the U.S. consumer and for the competitiveness of U.S. industry, for the utilities that undertook the program and for the private enterprise system that made it possible.[37]

Too many FUBARs in the nuke industry.

 

[mamooth]

Moron says what? "Navy reactor vessels". What in the fuck are "Navy reactor vessels"? Can you draw a picture of one, you idiot!

Reactor pressure vessels used on US Navy ships that have nuclear reactors, and a few test reactors on land. That's not rocket science. Why did such a simple term confuse you?

The reactors on the new carriers are probably rated around 750 MW (the exact number is classified). The AP1000 reactors are 1100 MW. That is, the Navy reactors are almost as big. And yet magically, the USA still builds them, even though you say the USA lacks the heavy industry to build a reactor vessel.

As far as the AP1000 reactors go, it's economics of scale. They only need 4 of them in the USA. It doesn't make economic sense to open up a new production line to make 4 of an object. It makes more economic sense to buy them from South Korea. Navy reactors, that's a national security thing, they have to build them in the USA, so cost is not much of an issue.

 

[elektra]

Moron says what? "Navy reactor vessels". What in the fuck are "Navy reactor vessels"? Can you draw a picture of one, you idiot!

Reactor pressure vessels used on US Navy ships that have nuclear reactors, and a few test reactors on land. That's not rocket science. Why did such a simple term confuse you?

It did not confuse me, sarcastically, I pointed out that you are an imbecile, because you are using the wrong technical term.

maMOOT, you make all these claims about how smart and intelligent Liberal Democrats are, yet, stupidly, you make a term for Nuclear Powered Aircraft Carriers and Submarines that nobody in the World uses. Is this subject really that confusing to you?

 

[elektra]

Moron says what? "Navy reactor vessels". What in the fuck are "Navy reactor vessels"? Can you draw a picture of one, you idiot!

the Navy reactors are almost as big. And yet magically, the USA still builds them,

For now, to make this next point I will ignore maMOOT is using terms that maMOOT makes up, WHERE DO THEY MAKE THESE REACTOR VESSELS?

 

[elektra]

Moron says what? "Navy reactor vessels". What in the fuck are "Navy reactor vessels"? Can you draw a picture of one, you idiot!

As far as the AP1000 reactors go, it's economics of scale. They only need 4 of them in the USA. It doesn't make economic sense to open up a new production line to make 4 of an object.

It does not make economic sense? To make only 4? It does not make economic sense for Westinghouse to produce the reactor of their design? Four in the United States, Four in China, One in India, One in the United Kingdom, One in Bulgaria.

11 pressure vessels needed, yet to maMOOT that does not know the proper terms to use, there is no economic value in building 11 pressure vessels for nuclear power plants.

The World of Science and Industry disagrees with maMOOT

Heavy Manufacturing of Power Plants - World Nuclear Association

Westinghouse says that the minimum requirement for making the largest AP1000 components is a 15,000 tonne press taking 350 tonne ingots.

The very heavy forging capacity in operation today is in Japan (Japan Steel Works), China (China First Heavy Industries, China Erzhong, SEC), France (Le Creusot), and Russia (OMZ Izhora).

New capacity is being built by JSW and JCFC in Japan, Shanghai Electric Group (SEC) and subsidiaries in China, and in South Korea (Doosan), Czech Rep (Pilsen) and Russia (OMZ Izhora and ZiO-Podolsk).

New capacity is planned in UK (Sheffield Forgemasters) and India (Larsen & Toubro, Bharat Heavy Electricals, Bharat Forge Ltd). In China the Harbin Boiler Co. and SEC subsidiary SENPE are increasing capacity.

Nothing in North America currently approaches these enterprises.

 

[mamooth]

For now, to make this next point I will ignore maMOOT is using terms that maMOOT makes up, WHERE DO THEY MAKE THESE REACTOR VESSELS?

Bechtel builds the new navy reactors, as well as some civilian reactors.

Bechtel Wins $7 Billion Nuclear Propulsion Deal | DoD Buzz

Nuclear Power Plant Project Constuction - Bechtel

maMOOT, you make all these claims about how smart and intelligent Liberal Democrats are, yet, stupidly, you make a term for Nuclear Powered Aircraft Carriers and Submarines that nobody in the World uses. Is this subject really that confusing to you

So you're saying "carrier" is a term nobody else uses? Curious.

Oh, I see. You didn't realize that when I said "vessels", I was very obviously referring to reactor pressure vessels, being how that was the topic of the discussion. You assumed it meant "ships". Nobody else made that mistake except you.

It does not make economic sense? To make only 4? It does not make economic sense for Westinghouse to produce the reactor of their design?

Apparently Westinghouse thinks so. I'll accept their judgement. What's your explanation? Is there a conspiracy theory in it? I like your conspiracy theories.

Four in the United States, Four in China, One in India, One in the United Kingdom, One in Bulgaria.

Bechtel is building large reactor containment vessels in the USA. Your claim is false. Accept it.

 

[elektra]

Moron says what? "Navy reactor vessels". What in the fuck are "Navy reactor vessels"? Can you draw a picture of one, you idiot!

The reactors on the new carriers are probably rated around 750 MW (the exact number is classified). The AP1000 reactors are 1100 MW. That is, the Navy reactors are almost as big. And yet magically, the USA still builds them, even though you say the USA lacks the heavy industry to build a reactor vessel.
.

Navy Nuclear Reactors are almost as big an AP1000? Nice, make something up about a Top Secret Nuclear Reactor and then maMOOT can lie through his/her teeth.

If AP1000's and Navy pressure vessels are about the same size, why not make them all in the same place? If in fact the Navy buys it's reactors in the USA?

Now, maMOOT has claimed that a Reactor in a Navy Ship, is about as big as an AP1000? So it takes 2 nuclear reactors the size of AP1000's to power one nuclear powered aircraft carrier? Pure bullshit on maMOOT's part. maMOOT had no idea that an Aircraft Carrier used two nuclear reactors. Anybody ever see how big a Commercial Nuclear power plant is, let alone two, can anybody imagine you can stuff two of today's operating nuclear power plants into one Aircraft Carrier!

My guess, is at best, it is around a 100 mw produced by each of an Aircraft Carrier's Reactors.

But, we kind of need a link and someone that knows the technical terms used, maMOOT has proved he/she does not know the technical terms. Here is an excellent example. maMOOT makes a claim that a
AP1000 produces 1100 mw where as I say that an AP1000 produces 3500 mw

I doubt maMOOT has used the correct the units to compare the two reactors, I also doubt maMOOT has quoted an accurate power rating of a Naval Nuclear Reactor.

AP1000 Nuclear Power Plant Design | Westinghouse Nuclear

The AP1000 nuclear power plant is a two-loop pressurized water reactor (PWR) that uses a simplified, innovative and effective approach to safety. With a gross power rating of 3,415 megawatt

 

[elektra]

Bechtel builds the new navy reactors, as well as some civilian reactors.
Bechtel Wins $7 Billion Nuclear Propulsion Deal | DoD Buzz
Bechtel is building large reactor containment vessels in the USA. Your claim is false. Accept it.

Bechtel does not forge Reactor Pressure Vessels, you have not quoted and linked proving that.

Bechtel is a design and construction company, they do not operate steel foundries, nor do they make valves or steam generators. They never have and never will.

Bechtel built Hoover Dam, that was one of their first major construction projects. Today, Bechtel does much maintenance at Nuclear Power plants.

Not one of your links states that Bechtel Manufactures the components.

1st, Bechtel is a construction and engineering company, as maMOOT's link states.
Bechtel Wins $7 Billion Nuclear Propulsion Deal | DoD Buzz

Bechtel Corp., the largest construction and engineering company in the U.S

Bechtel won a contract to MANAGE two facilities!
Bechtel Wins $7 Billion Nuclear Propulsion Deal | DoD Buzz

Bechtel Marine Propulsion Corp. won the contract from the Naval Sea Systems Command to manage the government-owned Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory near Schenectady, N.Y., as well as the Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory outside Pittsburgh, Pa.

They are labs, not steel foundries where steel ingots are turned into pressure vessels.
Bechtel Wins $7 Billion Nuclear Propulsion Deal | DoD Buzz

The labs, which are technically owned by the Energy Department, are part of a program between the department and the Navy to develop and maintain nuclear-powered warships.

The Knolls facility, known as KAPL, operates two sites. The main location in Niskayuna, N.Y., a suburb of Schenectady, designs nuclear reactor plants for the Navy’s submarines, including the Los Angeles-class, Ohio-class and Virginia-class. Another location about 20 miles to the north in West Milton runs two land-based reactors to train sailors who will eventually operate similar plants at sea.

The Bettis facility uses three primary sites to develop and maintain nuclear propulsion systems for the Navy’s surface ships and subs, including the main site in West Mifflin, Pa., a suburb of Pittsburgh; a Navy nuclear training facility in Charleston, S.C.; and the Naval Reactors Facility in Idaho Falls, Idaho.

 

[elektra]

Oh, I see. You didn't realize that when I said "vessels", I was very obviously referring to reactor pressure vessels, being how that was the topic of the discussion. You assumed it meant "ships". Nobody else made that mistake except you.

Bechtel is building large reactor containment vessels in the USA. Your claim is false. Accept it.

And now, you make the claim you are referring to "large reactor containment vessels", and "reactor pressure vessels"?

Reactor pressure vessels are not made in the USA, not the AP1000 as I stated.

A Large Reactor Containment Vessel is not the same thing as a Reactor Pressure Vessel, the Reactor Containment Vessel that Bechtel builds is the big dome of concrete and steel that contains the pressure vessel.

We have now gone from steel forgings, to maMOOT confusing concrete pouring?

 

[elektra]

Bechtel does not forge Nuclear Reactors, as maMOOT is claiming.

 

[mamooth]

If AP1000's and Navy pressure vessels are about the same size, why not make them all in the same place? If in fact the Navy buys it's reactors in the USA?

Please expand on your conspiracy theory. Exactly which foreign nation does the Navy buy its top secret reactors from?

Now, maMOOT has claimed that a Reactor in a Navy Ship, is about as big as an AP1000? So it takes 2 nuclear reactors the size of AP1000's to power one nuclear powered aircraft carrier?

The A4W reactors on the Nimitz class are rated at 550 MW.

A1B specs are secret, but they do state that the A1B electric power generation capability is 200 MW higher than the A4W. 550 + 200 = 750 MW output. But I erred there, given that electrical generation is not 100% efficient. More like 30%, so A1B reactors are probably around 1150 MW.

My guess, is at best, it is around a 100 mw produced by each of an Aircraft Carrier's Reactors.

No. Even the little cruisers had a pair of 150 MW reactors. And as for the carriers ...

A4W reactor - Wikipedia
---
The only ships to use these nuclear reactors are the Nimitz class supercarriers, which have two reactors rated at 550 MWt each.
----

But, we kind of need a link and someone that knows the technical terms used, maMOOT has proved he/she does not know the technical terms. Here is an excellent example. maMOOT makes a claim that a AP1000 produces 1100 mw where as I say that an AP1000 produces 3500 mw

I did make a mistake. 1100 MW is the electrical generation output. 3500 MW is the raw heat output. So, the AP1000 has about 3 times the capacity of the A1B. Both very large, with the A1B built in the USA.

 

[elektra]

The A4W reactors on the Nimitz class are rated at 550 MW.

A1B specs are secret, but they do state that the A1B electric power generation capability is 200 MW higher than the A4W. 550 + 200 = 750 MW output. But I erred there, given that electrical generation is not 100% efficient. More like 30%, so A1B reactors are probably around 1150 MW.

A4W reactor - Wikipedia
---
The only ships to use these nuclear reactors are the Nimitz class supercarriers, which have two reactors rated at 550 MWt each.
----
I did make a mistake. 1100 MW is the electrical generation output. 3500 MW is the raw heat output. So, the AP1000 has about 3 times the capacity of the A1B. Both very large, with the A1B built in the USA.

First and foremost, let us be clear again, what you are arguing, I stated that we have no Heavy Industry to manufacture an AP1000 or other reactors, and have linked and quoted to prove that fact.

Heavy Manufacturing of Power Plants - World Nuclear Association

Westinghouse says that the minimum requirement for making the largest AP1000 components is a 15,000 tonne press taking 350 tonne ingots.

The very heavy forging capacity in operation today is in Japan (Japan Steel Works), China (China First Heavy Industries, China Erzhong, SEC), France (Le Creusot), and Russia (OMZ Izhora).

Now maMOOT is trying to remove his/her foot from maMOOT's mouth by claiming small Naval Nuclear Reactors are about the same size as an AP1000 and thus by that reasoning the USA must have a Heavy Industry that produces something as big as AP1000's and other commercial nuclear reactors?

All conjecture.

Like the following, are we speaking mwh or mwt? Either way, maMOOT has done are far better job proving maMOOT knows nothing.

A1B reactors are probably around 1150 MW.

maMOOT, you are an idiot, to continue arguing about something you have demonstrated you know nothing about. The idea that you can stuff 2 AP1000's in a Aircraft Carrier is about the dumbest thing you have stated.

To argue that we have Heavy Industry capable of forging AP1000's pressure vessels by trying to state they are the same size as a reactor in a ship is about the dumbest post made by anybody. This simply shows mamooth is technically, ignorant. Without the basic skills to even quote and link, to prove the point.

All conjecture.

 

[elektra]

with the A1B built in the USA.

Can you prove the small, A1B, that requires no Heavy Industry, is built in the USA? Not that it matters, as we are speaking of Heavy Industry. So you have to statements of yours, to prove, where the reactor is made, and that it is made by Heavy Industry.

 

[mamooth]

Can you prove the small, A1B, that requires no Heavy Industry, is built in the USA?

You're talking crazy by declaring that a top secret US navy nuclear reactor is being built in a foreign country.

Not that it matters, as we are speaking of Heavy Industry

And you're talking crazy by declaring that an aircraft-carrier nuclear reactor is not a product of heavy industry.

You could have just admitted to being wrong. I didn't force you to jump on the crazy train. But you did, and you can't jump off, so you're just going to get crazier.

I'm no longer interested. I have nothing more to prove. Bye. Go fail at engineering somewhere else.

 

[elektra]

Can you prove the small, A1B, that requires no Heavy Industry, is built in the USA?

You're talking crazy by declaring that a top secret US navy nuclear reactor is being built in a foreign country.

Not that it matters, as we are speaking of Heavy Industry

And you're talking crazy by declaring that an aircraft-carrier nuclear reactor is not a product of heavy industry.

You could have just admitted to being wrong. I didn't force you to jump on the crazy train. But you did, and you can't jump off, so you're just going to get crazier.

I'm no longer interested. I have nothing more to prove. Bye. Go fail at engineering somewhere else.

I have made no declaration as to where, navy reactors are made, you have, you have not linked or offered any proof of your assertions.

Yes, you could admit you are wrong, but you will not.

I have shown how you do not use the correct terms for what you are speaking of.

I have shown how you do not use the correct units to describe which power rating you are referring to.

I have shown that AP 1000's and reactors as large, are only made in foreign countries.

I have shown that Bechtel does not make reactor pressure vessels of any type, using mamoot's link

I have corrected maMOOT when maMOOT thought Aircraft carriers use one reactor the same size as an AP1000, the fact is they use two, small reactors.

maMOOT has only proved that maMOOT has no way to prove maMOOTS incredibly stupid assertions.

Yes, go away maMOOT, maMOOT's ignorance is no match for ELEKTRA's knowledge.

I ha