# The Nuclear Option



## Wolverine (Apr 19, 2010)

Good article. Discuss. Some of the comments at the bottom crack me up, as people spout important sounding Environmental Anarchist quotes that show very little understanding of the power industry. Reminds me of Damon Wayans character on "In Living Color" that used big words without really knowing what they meant.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/236177



> This Nuclear Option Is NuclearThe costs of fads and superstition.
> 
> By George F. Will | NEWSWEEK
> 
> ...


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Apr 19, 2010)

Wolverine said:


> Today, a mini–Manhattan Project could find ways to recycle used nuclear fuel in a way that reduces its mass 97 percent and radioactive lifetime 98 percent.


This is the part that really strikes a chord with me. I really love the idea of nuclear power, and I'm not a NIMBY or BANANA advocate. But I have trouble throwing my full support behind nuclear until we can find something to do with the spent fuel. While we did have a "solution" in Yucca Mountain, I don't think that storing radioactive materials in a hole in the ground for a couple million years is a really practical solution (sorta like sweeping the trash under the rug). If we could figure out a way to viably recycle the fuel into more fuel, then we should absolutely move forward with not only making new reactors for future demand, but we should replace existing coal and oil power plants with them.


----------



## Dleg (Apr 19, 2010)

I've always been a huge fan of the nuclear option. From a purely rational point of view, it's a fantastic option. The latest generation of plants, from what I have read, are so far from the Three Mile Island plant that there is virtually no similarity (in terms of risk).

I think the country should build as many nuclear power plants as possible, focus a huge research effort on reclycling of wastes, as said, and convert to primarily electric-powered cars, or hydrogen-powered cars, with the hydrogen generated by electricity. Then, sure, add on windmills and hydroelectric and solar, as needed and available.

Then again, who's going to run all those nuclear plants? The Idiocracy generation? When Spock removed the fuel rods with his bare hands, it was heroic. When Bubba does it, it's just sad....


----------



## chaosiscash (Apr 20, 2010)

wilheldp_PE said:


> If we could figure out a way to viably recycle the fuel into more fuel, then we should absolutely move forward with not only making new reactors for future demand, but we should replace existing coal and oil power plants with them.


That was (one of) the point(s) of developing breeder reactor technology in the 70s. Too bad it got killed by Carter.

Besides, whats wrong with sticking it in a big hole in the ground we spent hundreds of millions, if not a billion, designing and building. Thats what Europe does, and we all know they do everything better over there. (Sadly enough, that might actually be true about nuclear power).


----------



## Ble_PE (Apr 20, 2010)

I'm a big fan of nuclear as well. I think that it is the most sensible option for us in order to reduce out reliance on fossil fuels for power. I think we need to get that first new plant built. After the first is built, I think we will see a large build up of new reactors. I hope that I can be a part of it cause that could mean good job security for a while. I could ride the second nuclear wave.


----------



## Supe (Apr 20, 2010)

Ble_PE said:


> I'm a big fan of nuclear as well. I think that it is the most sensible option for us in order to reduce out reliance on fossil fuels for power. I think we need to get that first new plant built. After the first is built, I think we will see a large build up of new reactors. I hope that I can be a part of it cause that could mean good job security for a while. I could ride the second nuclear wave.


I'm involved with the first couple plants in the southeast. Unfortunately, the words "hard dollar" and "union" are also involved, so I can't say for sure that I'll be seeing any of them to completion.

I agree though. Once they're up and running, the stigma surrounding them will all but disappear. I do think that the first few will go significantly over schedule and over budget though, and the extent to which they go over may dissuade some of the utilities from building immediately rather than waiting some time.


----------



## Ble_PE (Apr 20, 2010)

Supe said:


> Ble_PE said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a big fan of nuclear as well. I think that it is the most sensible option for us in order to reduce out reliance on fossil fuels for power. I think we need to get that first new plant built. After the first is built, I think we will see a large build up of new reactors. I hope that I can be a part of it cause that could mean good job security for a while. I could ride the second nuclear wave.
> ...


That's the one thing that worries me. I hope that the costs and schedules can be controlled somewhat to encourage other utilities it's worth it.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Apr 20, 2010)

I'd like to see the government spend a lot more money on fusion research, as well as back the construction of more conventional nuclear plants.

One thing to remember at TMI, is that the design was a success. Despite operators who couldn't have done a better job of sabataging it if they tried, no radiation was released. The core was ruined, but it failed safe.


----------



## chaosiscash (Apr 20, 2010)

Capt Worley PE said:


> I'd like to see the government spend a lot more money on fusion research


I once shared some office space with some guys doing fusion research. Those guys operated on a whole other plane. They were scary smart, but couldn't figure out how to make coffee.


----------



## Supe (Apr 20, 2010)

The other concern I have is that there seem to be some design problems that may have been overlooked. Without going into detail, China's equivalent regulatory agency to our NRC has submitted a few considerable challenges to the plants currently going up over there.


----------



## mizzoueng (Apr 20, 2010)

I think nukes are the future, wind will die out in 10-15 years when people realize that they don't work. Solar will take off, but only in Texas, ARizona, New Mexico, and SOuthern Cali. Even then, Solar will only serve those that are right next to it.

Nukes need to figure out a good way to get rid of the spent fuel. If the space elevator ever gets developed, there is an idea, but will need looked at hard.

I still think that coal can (and will) be "clean". Not as clean as nukes, but cleaner than what coal was 5 years ago. Gen 3 and Gen 4 Low NOx burners with OFA, SNCRs, SCRs, and Gen 2 baghouses will be developed after the new EPA legislation is finished. When it does, we will see a whole new field for coal. Sure its dangerous to mine coal, but its equally dangerous to mine uranium. No one mentions uranium mining, but its not like it grows on trees, you have to dig to get to it and there isn't exactly a whole lot of it to go around (like coal).

As for biomass, the reason they truck it in right now is because most utilities are using it as a supplement to coal. If you could convert to 100% biomass on a 300MW boiler, you would have to bring it in by rail much like they bring in coal now. And the carbon footprint of todays locomotives are minimal.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Apr 20, 2010)

There was a special last night on CNBC called "The Nuclear Option." It pretty much sucked. It was definitely tailored to CNBC's audience. Who obviously don't know shit about nuclear energy.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Apr 20, 2010)

I still think that solar is a good solution for residential applications. If the technology could be advanced just a little bit, and some development dollars could be put towards bringing the cost down and efficiency up, it would definitely be possible to economically justify solar systems on just about any house. Then, we would just need nuclear power plants to provide industrial and commercial power (although solar might work for them too with their vast flat roofs).

The problem, once again, is politicians. They don't know a damn thing about energy, but they will spend all day talking about how to "green it up". Big-ass wind farms are a political wet dream because they can point to the windmills and say "THERE's what I'm doing about green energy...what are YOU doing?". Research into efficient/cheap solar PV panels and nuclear fuel reprocessing isn't nearly as sexy.


----------



## chaosiscash (Apr 20, 2010)

mizzoueng said:


> No one mentions uranium mining, but its not like it grows on trees, you have to dig to get to it and there isn't exactly a whole lot of it to go around (like coal).


That depends on how much downblending happens to supply fuel, which doesn't require mining. Also, there is a lot (a whole lot) more energy in a pound of U than in a pound of coal.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Apr 20, 2010)

wilheldp_PE said:


> The problem, once again, is politicians. They don't know a damn thing about energy, but they will spend all day talking about how to "green it up".


I think one problem with our political system is we don't have very much career diversity in our elected offficials. Most of them have back ground in law. Very few engineers, doctors, farmers, retailers, etc go into politics. The result is a bunch of people making laws that have no idea of the consequences or ramificatrions of the legislation they pass.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Apr 20, 2010)

Jimmy Carter was an engineer. That didn't turn out too well.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Apr 20, 2010)

So was Hoover.

Edit: Carter's undergraduate degree was in physics.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Apr 20, 2010)

Capt Worley PE said:


> Edit: Carter's undergraduate degree was in physics.


I didn't know that. That explains a lot. He never actually had to apply his knowledge, just try to figure out how things work through experimentation. That kind of sums up his presidency.


----------



## mizzoueng (Apr 20, 2010)

chaosiscash said:


> mizzoueng said:
> 
> 
> > No one mentions uranium mining, but its not like it grows on trees, you have to dig to get to it and there isn't exactly a whole lot of it to go around (like coal).
> ...


Sorry, I meant that as a question/looking for comments. I assume that you still need to get more U as the rods become spent. I know little about the nuclear reaction process, I know the basic operation, but not how they refuel or process the ore.


----------



## jassiinpublic (Apr 20, 2010)

Capt Worley PE said:


> wilheldp_PE said:
> 
> 
> > The problem, once again, is politicians. They don't know a damn thing about energy, but they will spend all day talking about how to "green it up".
> ...


I'm debating going back to school part time for a public policy degree. I doubt I have the patience for a career in politics because I am rational and have morals. I'm probably considered a far-lefty in our screwed up political system.


----------



## benbo (Apr 20, 2010)

Chucktown PE said:


> Capt Worley PE said:
> 
> 
> > Edit: Carter's undergraduate degree was in physics.
> ...


You're joking, right?

I'm no Jimmy Carter fan, he's completely misguided IMO. But he did work on the Navy's nuclear fleet early in his career.

My dad had degrees in Physics and Mathematics and he did pretty much the same thing as the Engineers at Hughes Aircraft, where he worked for 40 years. He held both Senior Scientist and Senior Staff Engineer positions before going into management. I first went to school for Physics and my first summer job was as an Engineering Intern while studying Physics.


----------



## chaosiscash (Apr 20, 2010)

mizzoueng said:


> chaosiscash said:
> 
> 
> > mizzoueng said:
> ...


No problem, and you're right, at some point, there would be some mining. I'm just saying that would be significantly less that what would be required for coal for the equivalent amount of energy produced.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Apr 20, 2010)

benbo said:


> Chucktown PE said:
> 
> 
> > Capt Worley PE said:
> ...



Little sensitive are we benbo? I was joking about the physics degree, not about Jimmy Carter. In my opinion, he is in the top 10 of most awful presidents.


----------



## benbo (Apr 20, 2010)

Chucktown PE said:


> benbo said:
> 
> 
> > Chucktown PE said:
> ...


No. I've got an EE degree.

I figured you were joking. But sometimes it's hard to tell. Frankly, I've seen you post some weird stuff. :dancingnaughty:


----------



## Chucktown PE (Apr 20, 2010)

benbo said:


> Chucktown PE said:
> 
> 
> > benbo said:
> ...


I think you've got me and rrpearso confused. Other than my libertarian rants, what weird stuff have I posted?


----------



## benbo (Apr 20, 2010)

Chucktown PE said:


> benbo said:
> 
> 
> > Chucktown PE said:
> ...


Actually, I don't find the libertarian rants to be weird. Now who's getting sensitive?


----------



## Chucktown PE (Apr 20, 2010)

benbo said:


> Chucktown PE said:
> 
> 
> > benbo said:
> ...



I'm not being sensitive. I just want to refrain from posting any weird stuff thus avoiding the banhammer fate of rrpearso.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Apr 20, 2010)

One of the things we don't do in the states is re-process the spent fuel rods. Just doing that would greatly reduce the need for uranium. A typical fuel bundle spends either 4.5 or 6 years in the reactor (depends on if the plant is on a 24 or 18 month refueling cycle). Once it is "spent", only about 3% of the uranium in the rod has been depleted. There just isn't enough left to sustain a critical reaction. Once it's removed from the core, it just gets stored on-site in the spent fuel pool. It is possible to re-enrich the spent fuel so it can be used again. Another benefit is that it greatly reduces the volume of material that has to be stored somewhere like Yucca Mountain.


----------



## Wolverine (Apr 21, 2010)

Not to mention that we really don't need to store it permanently. 100 years from now we'll be digging up spent fuel for re-use, it's just that we don't have the technology right now to use it without creating some nasty by-products that we then still don't know what to do with.

Willheld, I have to challenge you on the claim that solar has a future on every house. When I sat down and looked at the math seriously one day to calculate cost, capability, and square footage required to install solar, it was completely unfeasible. We've been working on it for 40 years and it still just doesn't work (unless you get rid of HVAC, refrigeration, fluorescent lighting, and computers). A regular home reliably powered would take something like 1000 sq ft of panels and cost $30,000. That's my power bill for 35 years.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Apr 21, 2010)

^And the panels only last something like 20 years, and I bet power generation is way down at that point.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Apr 21, 2010)

Wolverine said:


> Willheld, I have to challenge you on the claim that solar has a future on every house. When I sat down and looked at the math seriously one day to calculate cost, capability, and square footage required to install solar, it was completely unfeasible. We've been working on it for 40 years and it still just doesn't work (unless you get rid of HVAC, refrigeration, fluorescent lighting, and computers). A regular home reliably powered would take something like 1000 sq ft of panels and cost $30,000. That's my power bill for 35 years.


The key word there is "future". Lots of R&amp;D needs to be done to increase the efficiency of panels, and reduce their cost. Commercial PV panels only get about 15% efficiency, and they are retarded expensive. I heard a while back that a company had developed a modified printer that could "print" PV cells. Research like that could cut the cost to a point where it _would_ be viable for residential power.

You are correct, though, that at it's current state, solar is no more than a luxury for most people.


----------

