Hansen goes nuclear and I agree

^ The Military is VERY inefficient at some things, but some things they do get right.
I hate Nukes!
It is only in this forum, in church, and when I'm in mixed company that the word 'Nuke' is not immediately preceded by the F-word. However (comma!) They have a peerless record for safety and reliability.

 

Ahhh. Now I feel like I'm where I belong. Most posters will not understand exactly what you are irked at with that statement.

 

Being in that crowd, the surprising word above is "sometimes". The real shock is exactly what you stated in another post. That post being the utility plant corporate leadership only views nuclear safety as something interfering with the quarterly profit numbers.

 

Yeah...like 10 Patrols worth!

Still and all.....it would be a wonderful return on our investment if there were modern PWRs for my beloved nuclear trained bretheren to work in when they changed their CAC cards in for a new primary ID card.
Even waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back when I was knocking holes in the ocean, do you wanna know where some of our fu...oops!! (*) our Nukes wound up getting a job???
Busch.
No....not the dubbaya's...
Ancheser-Busch!

I guess a vessel is a vessel.....

 

FL_Prius_Driver and ETC,
What is your impression of the gen 3+ reactors - AP1000 and the EPR?

IMHO, I don't think they should get subsidized, but I don't have a good feel about how much of an improvement they are from the bulk of reactors we have.

 

Honest answer?
(They're the only kind I use.....)

I'm not knowledgeable enough to give an educated answer.
My feeling is that if energy independence and AGW are worth spending blood and treasure over, then an honest effort ought to be made in an "all of the above" energy policy.
Usually I'm for letting greed and capitalization provide the incentive for innovation however (comma!) there are very rare instances where you want the government to make sure that development is happening with the goal of safely solving the problem...not saving money or generating a profit.
You do not need to do this when you're building roads or damming rivers....but Nuclear Power is something that should be pursued wisely.
G3, G3+ reactors should be heavily subsidized if not outright funded...at the research level.
When you start talking about production?
I'd want somebody more knowledgeable and unbiased than me doing that coin toss.
JMHO...

 

From a design standpoint, rock solid. A lot of the Navy safety design features not present in the earlier generations were reintroduced in this generation. The key things being the safety features activate when power is lost, not the previous approach of requiring outside power (diesel generators) to pump the cooling water. Calling it 1st generation, third iteration might be more accurate than third generation. However, this is a good thing. A solid design tightly refined is needed.

However, reactor design has never been a real weakness of US reactors. Utility operation and maintenance shortcuts for profit has been the first weak link. National approaches to (totally ignoring) waste handling are the other horrible weak link. These last two are so bad that building reactors should be held off till they are fixed (if ever).

If the government were to stick to properly regulating all pollution (including nuclear waste!!), removing destructive legislation, and letting a fair market operate, then subsidization would not be needed. In my utility we have the ultimate in nuclear subsidization.

We are paying the Duke Energy (formerly Progress Energy (formerly Florida Power)) extra money to cover the cost of them destroying the previous Crystal River nuclear plant and then paying even more extra money to cover the cost of a new Levy nuclear plant. The rules are such that if a new plant is not built, the utility gets to keep the subsidization money.

 

On Levy wasn't the initial estimate $5B and now its $22B? That is why I'm against big nuclear, its not that it kills people, it is that it is much more expensive than the Utilities estimate. Who knows what it will cost to make the waste safe. you are probably much better off killing Levy now and building ccgt and solar instead.

West County Energy Center 3,750MW CCGT - Power Technology

That is 70% more power than Levy would be able to provide. There are fuel charges, but say you built 2GW of solar at $5/watt over a 7 year time period that levy would take to build, that would cost $10B, add the ccgt and you are roughly at half the cost of levy. Solar may be much less expensive than this. I don't care what natural gas costs, that should be less expensive for at least the next 30 years, and florida can retire coal faster than building the nukes.

 

Levy is busy killing itself off. At what point is it too expensive? The private sector is not going for this price tag so the only hope is getting the state to secure the loan. (Think of the JOBS!) One very big new factor is the takeover of Progress Energy by Duke. It remains to be seen if Duke is as dense as Progress Energy or not. I mentioned before that the Crystal River coal plant has a very new natural gas pipeline installed. That would indicated the real plans are to go to Natural Gas, but a nuclear plant makes for a great reason to raise utility rates.

 

New leak found at Fukushima Nuclear Plant.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/world/asia/new-leak-found-at-fukushima-nuclear-plant.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimesworld&_r=1&

 

San Onofre Nuke plant in Southern California is closing !!!!!

San Onofre nuclear power plant to shut down - The Washington Post

 

Excuse me? Have we not heard of Fukishima, or TMI, or Chernobile? Hve we not heard of Handford "down winders"? Hve we not heard of increased cancers in Uranium miners?

But all that is an aside, from the REALLY big issue, that of what to do with the waste for a few thousand years? Every scheme I have heard of neglects to include in a robust way the human factor. The former Soviets haven't been able to keep thier nukes safe for a generation. Can one actully have enough faith in human nature to think that some latter day Osama would like to gt his hands on some nuke waste from some "secure" facility t make a dirty bomb?

Safety??? Only if you discount externalities? Reliability? Only if you excuse the accidents we know about!

Perhaps you drive a Corvair, or maybe a Yugo!

Icarus

 

what wrong with corvair? nice car.

 

In Californa cleaning upon decommisioned military bases toxic waste (petroleum tank leaks, etc) that has been going on since the 30's is still going on.

Perhaps civilian is more regulated than military.

 

His comment was about the safety and reliability of Navy nuclear power plants. Everything you listed above are non-Navy power plants. Can you name ANY U.S. Navy power plant accidents?

Different issue and one that is very serious. But mixing completely different issues dilutes your point significantly.

Back to first question. Fifty years of operating 100s of reactor plants and no accidents. Reliabilty so good that submarines routinely go under the Arctic Ice for weeks at a time. (A location that most likely kill the crew if the reactor were to fail). What exactly are you pointing out as the US Navy reactor's shortcomings?

 

Hanford is a military site, used for the Manhattan Project building up the nations nuclear bombs for WW II

Leaking now. Easy to find just google it.


America’s most contaminated: Radioactive waste leaks into northwestern river — RT USA


March AF Base is a superfund toxic clean up site. Mostly a jet fuel



Superfund Site Overview March Air Force Base, Pacific Southwest, US EPA

 

Someone said that design is not an issue. I disagree. It is the entire issue. Chernobyl took place because they used a design with a positive void coefficient. That, combined with a reckless safety culture, no containment, and a ministry that managed nuclear plants just like coal burning ones is what brought down the plant. If the US built small scale, standardized designs rather than customizing monster plants, it can be reliable and safe. The French, not known for engineering prowess, seem to have done this, with the large part of their power coming from nuclear plants.

 

The problem is storing the nuclear waste for thousands of years.

California is down to 1 nuclear plant in No Cali

It is old and will be decommissioned soon.

We have plenty of sunshine and natural gas and petroleum is still being pumped from the ground. Much easier to work with and not the same danger of leaks and storage nuclear presents. Why play with fire unless you have to.
I'm sure engineers said San Onefre is safe. However Mitsubishi recently sold some bad designed stuff which caused the leaks and the shut down followed. People say the new stuff is designed for no problems. The guts of San Onofre are a few years old and bam nuclear waste leaks. So much for the experts.

I cannot speak for the military. I would imagine nuclear subs is a mandatory requirement and safety is first a foremost. There are super fund sites that are military bases. Gov tends to be quiet on ECO issues unless discovered.

The French can have nuclear and socialism.

 

FLaP,

One cannot separate nuke waste from nuke power production. Unless and until one can over the waste issue, the issue of nuke production safety and waste are inexerably linked. I agree the safety record of nuke subs is pretty good, in the US anyway. (Kursk anyone?)

The point is when you take a broad lens look at nuke powers in its entirty, it is, carbon free, but it is not clean, nor is it (as presently prosecuted) safe.

Icarus

 

+1