Nuke power in the usa

[pwjohn]

• The USA is the world's largest producer of nuclear power, accounting for more than 30% of worldwide nuclear generation of electricity.
• The country's 100 nuclear reactors produced 798 billion kWh in 2014, over 19% of total electrical output. There are now 99 units operable (98.7 GWe) and five under construction.
• Following a 30-year period in which few new reactors were built, it is expected that six new units may come on line by 2020, four of those resulting from 16 licence applications made since mid-2007 to build 24 new nuclear reactors.
• However, lower gas prices since 2009 have put the economic viability of some existing reactors and proposed projects in doubt.
• Government policy changes since the late 1990s have helped pave the way for significant growth in nuclear capacity. Government and industry are working closely on expedited approval for construction and new plant designs.

Nuclear Power in the USA

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Nuclear energy's great and perfectly safe. Until it isn't. Then it really sucks.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Even the worst non-nuclear accidents and explosions don't result in 30Km radius dead zones where no one can live for the next several thousand years. The 'really sucks' part of nuclear energy.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nuclear power is the way to go; the sooner we replace our fossil fuel plants with reactors, the better off we'll be.
But then....
- Energy Independence has never been about electricity
- The push for solar/wind/thermal/hydro-electric power has never been about cheap and plentiful power

 

[Decus]

Nuclear is the way forward. Having been tested for a couple of decades molten salt nuclear reactors are the cleanest and safest way to generate electricity:

"In molten-salt designs, if the power goes off or the reactor is damaged, the system will cool off on its own without allowing radioactivity to spread. Conventional nuclear reactors must be actively cooled, with water continuously pumped through them. If the pumps stop, the fuel starts to overheat, which can lead to the release of radioactive materials into the environment."

Reactor Design to Lower the Cost of Nuclear Power MIT Technology Review

 

[pwjohn]

Even the worst non-nuclear accidents and explosions don't result in 30Km radius dead zones where no one can live for the next several thousand years. The 'really sucks' part of nuclear energy.

Has something like what you describe happened here?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nuclear is the way forward. Having been tested for a couple of decades molten salt nuclear reactors are the cleanest and safest way to generate electricity:
"In molten-salt designs, if the power goes off or the reactor is damaged, the system will cool off on its own without allowing radioactivity to spread. Conventional nuclear reactors must be actively cooled, with water continuously pumped through them. If the pumps stop, the fuel starts to overheat, which can lead to the release of radioactive materials into the environment."

Not entirely true - marine water-cooled nuclear plants can shut down their pumps and cool with with convection.

 

[Decus]

Nuclear is the way forward. Having been tested for a couple of decades molten salt nuclear reactors are the cleanest and safest way to generate electricity:
"In molten-salt designs, if the power goes off or the reactor is damaged, the system will cool off on its own without allowing radioactivity to spread. Conventional nuclear reactors must be actively cooled, with water continuously pumped through them. If the pumps stop, the fuel starts to overheat, which can lead to the release of radioactive materials into the environment."

Not entirely true - marine water-cooled nuclear plants can shut down their pumps and cool with cool with convection.

No argument from me. I like nuclear. There a numerous options available today that provide safe, clean, cheap with 24/7 production of electricity - molten salt reactors are just one such design.

.

 

[Hamlet091765]

Nuclear power is the way to go; the sooner we replace our fossil fuel plants with reactors, the better off we'll be.
But then....
- Energy Independence has never been about electricity
- The push for solar/wind/thermal/hydro-electric power has never been about cheap and plentiful power

What is the push about?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nuclear power is the way to go; the sooner we replace our fossil fuel plants with reactors, the better off we'll be.
But then....
- Energy Independence has never been about electricity
- The push for solar/wind/thermal/hydro-electric power has never been about cheap and plentiful power

What is the push about?

Limited, and therefore expensive. power.
Limited, expensive power slows economic growth.

Environmentalists are like watermellons -- green on the outside,red in the middle.

 

[pwjohn]

Even the worst non-nuclear accidents and explosions don't result in 30Km radius dead zones where no one can live for the next several thousand years. The 'really sucks' part of nuclear energy.

And where in America did that happen ?

 

[pwjohn]

Nuclear power is the way to go; the sooner we replace our fossil fuel plants with reactors, the better off we'll be.
But then....
- Energy Independence has never been about electricity
- The push for solar/wind/thermal/hydro-electric power has never been about cheap and plentiful power

Energy independence has always been about oil. And we don't burn oil to produce power

And hydro has everything to do with cheap plentiful power when compared to solar.

 

[pwjohn]

Nuclear is the way forward. Having been tested for a couple of decades molten salt nuclear reactors are the cleanest and safest way to generate electricity:

"In molten-salt designs, if the power goes off or the reactor is damaged, the system will cool off on its own without allowing radioactivity to spread. Conventional nuclear reactors must be actively cooled, with water continuously pumped through them. If the pumps stop, the fuel starts to overheat, which can lead to the release of radioactive materials into the environment."

Reactor Design to Lower the Cost of Nuclear Power MIT Technology Review

I read the article linked to your reply and found it very interesting. Molten Salt was a huge bust for the solar power industry.

 

[EverCurious]

*grumbles* Why can't they find something cheap/clean that works in cold weather?

U.S. Nuclear Power Plants Weather the Polar Vortex U.S. NRC Blog

 

[pwjohn]

↑
*grumbles* Why can't they find something cheap/clean that works in cold weather?

U.S. Nuclear Power Plants Weather the Polar Vortex U.S. NRC Blog


That's interesting although I'm pretty sure any water cooled power plants, regardless of fuel would implement similiar procedures during cold weather operation.

 

[EverCurious]

*grumbles* Why can't they find something cheap/clean that works in cold weather?

U.S. Nuclear Power Plants Weather the Polar Vortex U.S. NRC Blog

That's interesting. I'm sure any water cooled power plants, regardless of fuel would implement similiar procedures during cold weather operation.

Water cooled might be worse, it would require a massive heater to function else the lake would freeze up, unless we could pull sea water? Apparently they have troubles in hot weather as well; Fairbanks be hosed I think (they range from 80 below in the winter to almost 100 in the summer, plus their full interior) ~How Climate Change May Affect Nuclear Power Plants The Energy Collective

We use mostly natural gas in Alaska, but we have a couple hydro electrics, and a couple of operational wind farms. Our power plants are small though cause we're not powering a network or anything, just a few towns/villages, I think the bigge. Thing is it has to be reliable because there's no other source to pull from if said power plant goes down. Most of our electric companies are customer owned so we have a bit more flexibility to innovate and experiment though. Fiddling with solar atm, but snow and cloud. Wind/solar are mostly supplemental because of the unreliability.

But yea, there's times of the year, where you seriously cannot turn off your car cause it'll freeze and not start up again. Of course we're drilling oil up north year round so we know how to deal with cold on that machinery. Cost would likely be a major issue with nuclear up here, because it's not like we have a state grid nor could we really put one in either, and I don't think we need that much power even to run the big city.

 

[M14 Shooter]

*grumbles* Why can't they find something cheap/clean that works in cold weather?

U.S. Nuclear Power Plants Weather the Polar Vortex U.S. NRC Blog

That's interesting. I'm sure any water cooled power plants, regardless of fuel would implement similiar procedures during cold weather operation.

Water cooled might be worse, it would require a massive heater to function else the lake would freeze up,

The warm water going into the lake does a pretty good job of that.

 

[EverCurious]

*grumbles* Why can't they find something cheap/clean that works in cold weather?

U.S. Nuclear Power Plants Weather the Polar Vortex U.S. NRC Blog

That's interesting. I'm sure any water cooled power plants, regardless of fuel would implement similiar procedures during cold weather operation.

Water cooled might be worse, it would require a massive heater to function else the lake would freeze up,

The warm water going into the lake does a pretty good job of that.

hmmm if you could regulate the exit temp then one could probably balance out the rate of flow thermodynamics freeze (some guys name mpheba or something... basically hot water freezes faster than cold.) I'm presuming it's at pretty high pressure though and that would circulate the hot water well... Dammit now I gotta look it up.

Mmmk so exit water temp is around 275-350C and pressure at 3200PSIA. No idea how to calculate what the balance temps for the lake would need to be at say 20, 30, 40, 50 below though; I'll have to ask a buddy later, I'm no nuclear scientist. *sigh*

 

[Godboy]

Nuclear energy's great and perfectly safe. Until it isn't. Then it really sucks.

True, but at this point the pros have far surpassed the cons.

 

[pwjohn]

*grumbles* Why can't they find something cheap/clean that works in cold weather?

U.S. Nuclear Power Plants Weather the Polar Vortex U.S. NRC Blog

That's interesting. I'm sure any water cooled power plants, regardless of fuel would implement similiar procedures during cold weather operation.

Water cooled might be worse, it would require a massive heater to function else the lake would freeze up, unless we could pull sea water? Apparently they have troubles in hot weather as well; Fairbanks be hosed I think (they range from 80 below in the winter to almost 100 in the summer, plus their full interior) ~How Climate Change May Affect Nuclear Power Plants The Energy Collective

We use mostly natural gas in Alaska, but we have a couple hydro electrics, and a couple of operational wind farms. Our power plants are small though cause we're not powering a network or anything, just a few towns/villages, I think the bigge. Thing is it has to be reliable because there's no other source to pull from if said power plant goes down. Most of our electric companies are customer owned so we have a bit more flexibility to innovate and experiment though. Fiddling with solar atm, but snow and cloud. Wind/solar are mostly supplemental because of the unreliability.

But yea, there's times of the year, where you seriously cannot turn off your car cause it'll freeze and not start up again. Of course we're drilling oil up north year round so we know how to deal with cold on that machinery. Cost would likely be a major issue with nuclear up here, because it's not like we have a state grid nor could we really put one in either, and I don't think we need that much power even to run the big city.

Thanks for the insight on generating power on a smaller scale up in Alaska.

I don't know much of anything about the nuts & bolts of power generation.