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

Discussion in 'Energy' started by Weatherman2020, Feb 1, 2017.

  1. elektra
    Offline

    elektra Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2013
    Messages:
    8,329
    Thanks Received:
    763
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Temecula California
    Ratings:
    +2,947
    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.
     
  2. mamooth
    Offline

    mamooth Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2012
    Messages:
    21,017
    Thanks Received:
    3,557
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Ratings:
    +13,678
    So Navy reactor vessels aren't actually reactor vessels?
     
  3. elektra
    Offline

    elektra Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2013
    Messages:
    8,329
    Thanks Received:
    763
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Temecula California
    Ratings:
    +2,947
    Moron says what? "Navy reactor vessels". What in the fuck are "Navy reactor vessels"? Can you draw a picture of one, you idiot!
     
  4. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    59,181
    Thanks Received:
    7,193
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +18,998
    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: [​IMG]43.518233°N 112.823727°W

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    SL-1
    Location in the United States
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    SL-1
    Location in Idaho, west of Idaho Falls
    [​IMG]
    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
     
  5. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    59,181
    Thanks Received:
    7,193
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +18,998
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    navy reactor vessels - Google Search:
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  6. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    59,181
    Thanks Received:
    7,193
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +18,998
    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.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. mamooth
    Offline

    mamooth Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2012
    Messages:
    21,017
    Thanks Received:
    3,557
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Ratings:
    +13,678
    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.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. elektra
    Offline

    elektra Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2013
    Messages:
    8,329
    Thanks Received:
    763
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Temecula California
    Ratings:
    +2,947
    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?
     
  9. elektra
    Offline

    elektra Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2013
    Messages:
    8,329
    Thanks Received:
    763
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Temecula California
    Ratings:
    +2,947
    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?
     
  10. elektra
    Offline

    elektra Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2013
    Messages:
    8,329
    Thanks Received:
    763
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Temecula California
    Ratings:
    +2,947
    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

     

Share This Page