Trump considers EO to expedite nuclear power, is that even possible, or responsible?

[WorldWatcher]

I'm a "belt and suspenders" type of engineer. I'd prefer nat-gas plants until SMRs get a track record and get debugged.

We do have SMRs powering carriers and subs, but I don't know if they would be robust enough to withstand an earthquake or other land design conditions.

Bit of trivia...

A carriers nuclear reactor produces about 190 Mw of power. Enough to power around 150,000 average homes.

However that is "average" so you need to reduce that by - I'm guessing - 25% for simultaneous peak loading as energy usage in the height of a hot day in the summer is above average. So down to about 115,000 homes.

Google says there are aboutg 147 million housing units. That's about 1,300 SMR's to replace curren infrastructure. Less if current large plants are left online.

However, you will have scheduled down time for maintenance, so extra capacity is needed.


WW

 

[kyzr]

Bit of trivia...A carriers nuclear reactor produces about 813 Mw of power. Enough to power around 150,000 average homes.
However that is "average" so you need to reduce that by - I'm guessing - 25% for peak loading as energy usage in the height of a hot day in the summer is above average. So down to about 115,000 homes.
Google says there are about 147 million housing units. That's about 1,300 SMR's to replace current infrastructure. Less if current large plants are left online. However, you will have scheduled down time for maintenance, so extra capacity is needed. WW

The Navy's SMRs are the only ones the US uses, but I don't know what would be required for those designs to get an operating license from the NRC. Also, who would operate and be responsible for them, certainly not the data-center owners.
813 Mw is a very powerful powerplant, that is the capacity of TMI Unit-1, which Microsoft purchased and is reopening.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/20/energy/three-mile-island-microsoft-ai/index.html

 

[WorldWatcher]

The Navy's SMRs are the only ones the US uses, but I don't know what would be required for those designs to get an operating license from the NRC. Also, who would operate and be responsible for them, certainly not the data-center owners.
813 Mw is a very powerful powerplant, that is the capacity of TMI Unit-1, which Microsoft purchased and is reopening.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/20/energy/three-mile-island-microsoft-ai/index.html

Ya, 813 Mw is inline with newer large capacity natural gas plants.

I still go back to my old conundrum...

..... ..... ..... Is generation the problem or is storage the problem?

Is what we need is high capacity (grid level) storage meaning we DON'T need to build to peak. We could generate on average and store for peak demand?

WW

 

[Independent thinker]

I'm generally a Trump supporter, but this is plain stupid. (if he does it)

Trump would basically be saying that 3 pregnant women can make a baby in 3-months.

Trump administration considers orders expediting nuclear plant construction, NYT reports

U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is considering several executive orders to expedite the construction of nuclear power plants, the New York Times reported on Friday, citing drafts it has reviewed.

www.yahoo.com

Trump administration considers orders expediting nuclear plant construction, NYT reports​

Nuclear power is not something you want to rush. This idea isn't even half-baked.

Finding suitable sites for many more nuke plants is tough, not even counting the NIMBY lawsuits.
Permitting can take 10-years
Construction can take 10-years
Fuel and waste are major issues
Running nuclear powerplants is not easy

Can Trump wave a magic wand? Making that much high quality specialty steel to fabricate reactors and the plants is other worldly.

Generally speaking, I'm actually against nuclear energy, unless it is fusion. It just seems to me like the world is playing with fire. We've already been burned a few times from it and yet we keep on doing it. Part of the problem is that most of the green tree huggers like nuclear energy.

 

[kyzr]

Ya, 813 Mw is inline with newer large capacity natural gas plants.
I still go back to my old conundrum....... Is generation the problem or is storage the problem?
Is what we need is high capacity (grid level) storage meaning we DON'T need to build to peak. We could generate on average and store for peak demand? WW

Storage is a new technology, I would think it would be cost prohibitive for large scale (grid level) use.
Since China controls most of the rare metals needed for batteries I'd say "peaking units" would be preferred.
Peaking units are typically very flexible gas powered units that can start/stop or run at varying capacity to meet varying demand. Nuke plants like to run at a constant rate.

 

[toobfreak]

Trump considers EO to expedite nuclear power, is that even possible, or responsible?​

Yes. For one thing, we have making nuke power plants down pat now. Forks here and abroad have already made every dumb mistake there is. Second, it takes years to build one, we need the power, so we should get started on them ASAP.

And third, if Trump doesn't get them started now and a democrat gets back in, you can be sure they will kill the project and instead try to build windmills on everyone's homes instead.

 

[kyzr]

Generally speaking, I'm actually against nuclear energy, unless it is fusion. It just seems to me like the world is playing with fire. We've already been burned a few times from it and yet we keep on doing it. Part of the problem is that most of the green tree huggers like nuclear energy.

"Fusion is always 30-years away" is a standard fusion joke.

Why Nuclear Fusion Is Always 30 Years Away

What's the hold up?

www.discovermagazine.com

Nuclear power is theoretically cheap "green" energy. GE originally said it would be too cheap to meter.

"Too Cheap to Meter": A History of the Phrase

"Too Cheap to Meter": A History of the Phrase

www.nrc.gov

The problem is that the world needs more and more power with China building coal fired plants at the rate of one a week.
Nuclear power has been used safely for decades with a few "accidents", like Chernobyl, Fukashima, and TMI. The last one being Fukishima in 2011. Let's hope that we all learned that safety is never compromised regarding nuclear power.

I'm sure you will have many cohorts all against nuclear power. So how do you power all those new fancy AI data-centers?

 

[toobfreak]

Generally speaking, I'm actually against nuclear energy, unless it is fusion.

There is no fusion. Fusion is just a theory, it has never been commercially accomplished except by the Sun.

It just seems to me like the world is playing with fire.

Not at all. We have learned from our mistakes, we know what dumb things not to do now, and besides, there are other ways of making them besides using plutonium, such as thorium.

 

[Independent thinker]

There is no fusion. Fusion is just a theory, it has never been commercially accomplished except by the Sun.


Not at all. We have learned from our mistakes, we know what dumb things not to do now, and besides, there are other ways of making them besides using plutonium, such as thorium.

We can't cover for all possibilities. I remember 50 years ago we had plane crashes killing many people like 2-3 times per year. Yes, we learned a lot from those crashes and made improvements so that they would theoretically never happen again. Even though plane crashes with lots of loss of lives are quite rare anymore, they still happen and nuclear accidents will continue to happen in the future. Just look at Ukraine right now. The world is very worried Russia will do something bad to Ukraine's nuclear power plant. If it was so safe, we wouldn't be worrying about it. And, we have nuclear power plants in California right now who could fall victim to a large Earthquake.

 

[toobfreak]

We can't cover for all possibilities.

Sure we can. It all comes down to just two things:

1. Controlling the reaction process to limit energy production.
2. Not letting heat build up that the core melts down.

In nearly every case, it was a loss of water, a loss of coolant, that lead to the problem.

 

[kyzr]

Yes. For one thing, we have making nuke power plants down pat now. Forks here and abroad have already made every dumb mistake there is. Second, it takes years to build one, we need the power, so we should get started on them ASAP.
And third, if Trump doesn't get them started now and a democrat gets back in, you can be sure they will kill the project and instead try to build windmills on everyone's homes instead.

1. True, we know how to build big nuke plants, but not the small SMRs yet.
2. True again, it does take years to build big nuke plants, it also takes years for them to get permits approved.
3. I hope you are wrong that a democrat would stop any new nuke plants being built, because that means he/she would also be stopping the new fancy AI data-centers we need.
4. I'm not sure any democrat would get interest in more wind turbines, they have failed more than they succeeded offshore.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Generally speaking, I'm actually against nuclear energy, unless it is fusion. It just seems to me like the world is playing with fire. We've already been burned a few times from it and yet we keep on doing it. Part of the problem is that most of the green tree huggers like nuclear energy.

We've already been burned a few times from it

How many died?

Part of the problem is that most of the green tree huggers like nuclear energy.

They hate nuclear power more than anything.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

My eyes are blue and hair is white.
We haven't had any of those bad events because we have generally been very thorough.
TMI was bad enough, a partial meltdown and a worthless very expensive nuclear powerplant is a reminder what can happen.

You must be old, then I assume. Have you been screened for Alzheimer's?

All caused because humans didn't follow established procedures.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

1. True, we know how to build big nuke plants, but not the small SMRs yet.
2. True again, it does take years to build big nuke plants, it also takes years for them to get permits approved.
3. I hope you are wrong that a democrat would stop any new nuke plants being built, because that means he/she would also be stopping the new fancy AI data-centers we need.
4. I'm not sure any democrat would get interest in more wind turbines, they have failed more than they succeeded offshore.

Why can't the permitting process be sped up? Why the delays? Sounds like people problems.

 

[kyzr]

Why can't the permitting process be sped up? Why the delays? Sounds like people problems.

There is a lot of up-front work that needs to happen before siting a big nuke plant to establish the design criteria.
That's why I said it would be smart to site any new ones near the old ones, even if they have been retired.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

There is a lot of up-front work that needs to happen before siting a big nuke plant to establish the design criteria.
That's why I said it would be smart to site any new ones near the old ones, even if they have been retired.

Well, I guess we better get started then, huh? I am sure there are projects out there that were shelved that could easily be revived. The point is that if we don't start now and streamline the process, we will never get there. It's like the space race in the 60s.

A nuclear reactor is actually very simple. It's a power plant with a reactor and steam generators instead of a boiler. They both require large quantities of water for cooling.

 

[jknowgood]

We don't use stupid commie designs, unless Trump writes that EO to do so.

You really think he would?

 

[toobfreak]

1. True, we know how to build big nuke plants, but not the small SMRs yet.

Rubbish, we invented the nuclear reactor. We build reactors for everything from power plants to nuclear subs to nuclear power systems for deep space probes. We built the power plants inside the Voyager probes launched in the late 70s that are still operating beyond our solar system far far beyond their expected lifespan.

2. True again, it does take years to build big nuke plants, it also takes years for them to get permits approved.

Which is why we should have been building more of them 10-20 years ago, pinning the urgency on building them now.

3. I hope you are wrong that a democrat would stop any new nuke plants being built, because that means he/she would also be stopping the new fancy AI data-centers we need.

Of course I'm not wrong. Democrats must first and foremost appease their environmental wacko base, and they do not want nuclear plants.

4. I'm not sure any democrat would get interest in more wind turbines, they have failed more than they succeeded offshore.

Now there you go using sound reasoning and logic! We are talking about far leftist democrats here. Joe Biden had all of us driving EVs by 2035 by hook or crook if necessary.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Okay, so I'm sure you have some examples of small modular fusion plants ready to ship?
Yeah, no, that's not an actual thing. It's a nice idea, but not an actual thing.

Fusion is 10 years away, and always will be.

Here's an idea, don't use stupid commie designs.
Don't build reactors with no containment structure inside
a pile of carbon.

And don't use graphite as a moderator.

 

[kyzr]

You really think he would?

I hope not. Sometimes he thinks like a "know-it-all manager" instead of listening to the technical experts.
Reminds me of the saying "often wrong but never in doubt"
If he says he knows more about nuclear power than the engineers....get your doomsday prepper gear ready.