Nuclear anyone?

[KennyG]

I do voltage regulator work on large generators and have worked in most of the nukes in the US and Spain in the past. There is no better or safer source for power. The biggest problem with them is load control. They don't perform very well at partial power so they are not good for control on the grid. But they make awesome base load units. If they keep closing nukes we are going to be in a place we can't recover from. Thank goodness some of the utilities refused to close their nuke sites. But most of the single unit sites in the US have already closed. DC Cook and River Bend in Baton Rouge are 2 that have survived.

The limitations on load follow capability in the existing nuclear units is just a design choice. Some of the units are designed to quickly ramp up and down from 80% to 100%, some are designed to operate between 50% and 100% but newer units are designed to operate over a much wider range.

It is being suggested that we will develop massive battery storage to make solar and wind more functional, but if we had these unicorn batteries, it would make more sense to expand nuclear since they only need to follow the daily load demand variation, not the seasonal or weather pattern variation in solar and wind production.

 

[Torvy]

I'm fairly certain Nuclear power is safe. That said, being in high school and about an hour or so away from 3 mile Island when they had an accident, don't blame me if I'm not a huge fan of it

It turns out 3 mile Island was more fear mongering than anything else. A small amount of steam escaped. There have been a bunch of studies of people around there and no ill-effects can be attributed to it.

 

[ponytug]

My personal reservations are really around what to do with the waste, not just fuel rods, but also the whole reactor containment vessel and concrete. It is massive and it all ages, and weakens, with radiation exposure. The non-fuel pieces may not be lethally radioactive, but I think that you don't exactly want it around living things. Recycling the material isn't yet in the cards, and I don't see communities clamoring to become large scale waste disposal sites. Which would seem to leave us a few cards short of a full deck.

I'd be a fan if we had ways to recycle it safely and at a reasonable cost. I think we owe that to future generations.

All the best,

Peter

 

[Torvy]

They actually have been recycling the fuel. It turns out they can use it up until the half life is considerably less than the fear we were pitched as kids.

Processing of Used Nuclear Fuel - World Nuclear Association

Used nuclear fuel has long been reprocessed to extract fissile materials for recycling and to reduce the volume of high-level wastes. New reprocessing technologies are being developed to be deployed in conjunction with fast neutron reactors which will burn all long-lived actinides.

world-nuclear.org

 

[5030]

The issue with all Nuclear plants is the lowest bidder syndrome. N facilities all need to be built with built in redundancy. Not the case today.

 

[Rockbadchild]

My personal reservations are really around what to do with the waste, not just fuel rods, but also the whole reactor containment vessel and concrete. It is massive and it all ages, and weakens, with radiation exposure. The non-fuel pieces may not be lethally radioactive, but I think that you don't exactly want it around living things. Recycling the material isn't yet in the cards, and I don't see communities clamoring to become large scale waste disposal sites. Which would seem to leave us a few cards short of a full deck.

I'd be a fan if we had ways to recycle it safely and at a reasonable cost. I think we owe that to future generations.

All the best,

Peter

depleted Uranium gets cast in cement and buried underground, old mines or the desert are perfect place for it. That's a lot better then what the Russian do, simply dump it in the ocean...

 

[gsganzer]

Lawrence Livermore National Labs has successfully repeated nuclear fusion showing that it's possible. Fusion is seen as the holy grail for power production.

Here's the link

Nuclear Fusion Breakthrough

 

[Chewwy]

. .
Thank goodness some of the utilities refused to close their nuke sites. But most of the single unit sites in the US have already closed. DC Cook and River Bend in Baton Rouge are 2 that have survived.

D.C. Cook is a TWO unit site.

 

[Chewwy]

I really don't think we have the intelligence to build new reactors in the US anymore. The NRC is over the top with idiots and I really don't know if they would ever manage to get one built. They built 5 nuclear reactors in less than 5 years at Savannah River Plant back in 1951. It would take them a century to do that now.

The USNRC did not build the reactors at the Savannah River Site. It was their precedecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission. The reactors there were NOT for electric power production. They were to produce Plutonium and Tritium for bomb production.

 

[Chewwy]

They actually have been recycling the fuel. It turns out they can use it up until the half life is considerably less than the fear we were pitched as kids.

Processing of Used Nuclear Fuel - World Nuclear Association

Used nuclear fuel has long been reprocessed to extract fissile materials for recycling and to reduce the volume of high-level wastes. New reprocessing technologies are being developed to be deployed in conjunction with fast neutron reactors which will burn all long-lived actinides.

world-nuclear.org

Not in the U.S. The peanut farmer president fordid U.S. nuclear fuel reprocessing in the 1970s.

 

[Yander]

Not in the U.S. The peanut farmer president fordid U.S. nuclear fuel reprocessing in the 1970s.

He was almost as destructive to our country as 46. Actually, not nearly as but still was a suck Pres.

 

[Yander]

It turns out 3 mile Island was more fear mongering than anything else. A small amount of steam escaped. There have been a bunch of studies of people around there and no ill-effects can be attributed to it.

Our country would never fear monger! What would be the benefit in doing that?

I mean, our government has our best interest in mind. They would never use fear to, I don't know, drive energy where it is most profitable for them or healthcare to where it is profitable to them and their lobbyists. They would never use climate change as a fear tool for making money or the USDA food pyramid to keep us fat and on meds and diabetic or use a pandemic to get us all vaxed and sick from vax so we need more meds.

Not our country!

 

[KennyG]

The USNRC did not build the reactors at the Savannah River Site. It was their precedecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission. The reactors there were NOT for electric power production. They were to produce Plutonium and Tritium for bomb production.

The weapons reactors and processing equipment is, in many ways, much more complex than commercial reactors. Technically, the NRC and AEC, as government agencies (thankfully) have never built anything. The AEC and today the Dept of Defense only financed the weapons plants. The NRC only regulates civilian use of nuclear technology. Many people don't realize that the NRC budget is essentially all funded by the industries they regulate, so it's probably the only revenue neutral segment of the government.

 

[Chewwy]

. . .

Many people don't realize that the NRC budget is essentially all funded by the industries they regulate, so it's probably the only revenue neutral segment of the government.

TVA is also revenue neutral. It is funded by its energy sales. Being revenue neutral also means less congressional oversight.

 

[gsganzer]

They actually have been recycling the fuel. It turns out they can use it up until the half life is considerably less than the fear we were pitched as kids.

Processing of Used Nuclear Fuel - World Nuclear Association

Used nuclear fuel has long been reprocessed to extract fissile materials for recycling and to reduce the volume of high-level wastes. New reprocessing technologies are being developed to be deployed in conjunction with fast neutron reactors which will burn all long-lived actinides.

world-nuclear.org

I worked on a project years ago where they were vitrifying nuclear waste. Essentially stabilizing it in glass so it isn't leachable. Apparently, that's how the Europeans do it, but the US had to conduct our own multi-million dollar studies to also prove it works.

 

[hosspuller]

I lived in eastern PA when 3 mile island hit the news. The media was interviewing children to broadcast their "feelings" Of course, they were scared. The media was reinforcing the narrative that the Nuclear power was dangerous to the public. There's talk about converting a coal fired gen station about a mile from me to nuclear.. I'm all for it.

 

[lilranch2001]

Anyone with just a little bit of common sense would be concerned when an incident like 3 mile island happened, but to not see it as a milestone, rather than I lifelong threat seems to be a little bit over the top in my humble opinion

 

[gsganzer]

Anyone with just a little bit of common sense would be concerned when an incident like 3 mile island happened, but to not see it as a milestone, rather than I lifelong threat seems to be a little bit over the top in my humble opinion

I agree. And what a lot of people don't understand, is that the nuclear plant technology of those plants versus today is like comparing a Model A versus a BMW. Those plants are utilizing 75 year old technology. A modern SMR doesn't even compare to the old plants.

I'm a firm believer that we should be tapping the brakes on decommissioning the coal plants, until a standardized SMR design is approved and can be retrofitted in their same real estate and locations. The power transmission nodes are already at those locations, as are any water/cooling infrastructure.

You plan to decommission a 600MW coal plant, you drop in (2) 300MW SMR units (or more) in their place.

 

[Torvy]

If the stated goal is to move toward more electric vehicle, appliances, etc., we should be waiting to decommission any coal until that plant has been replaced with 150-200% output in nuclear. Every state/region should have its own grid that can be manually connected to others in an emergency, but that will limit the impact of grid damage (natural or sabotage).

Even that old tech worked in 1979. It did what it was supposed to do and contained the issue.

Nuclear waste is also mis-imagined by people who watch too many bad movies and think there is some goo involved.

 

[workinonit]

The USNRC did not build the reactors at the Savannah River Site. It was their precedecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission. The reactors there were NOT for electric power production. They were to produce Plutonium and Tritium for bomb production.

I know who built them and what they were built for. I worked there for Dupont and WSRC for 20 years. First of all I didn't say NRC built them, I said "they" which was referring to Dupont. I also never said they were for power production because I know better. But....they are nevertheless nuclear reactors that are under the control of DOE and the NRC. Carry on.