# Let's go Nuclear



## Dark Knight (Aug 1, 2007)

I read this article and as an EE and a former TVA employee found that interesting.

Watts-Bar 2nd Nuclear Reactor

Nuclear Generation Plants might be the way to go. It is clean but the public is just afraid of it due to bad things in the past, like Three Mile Island incident.

Let us see what happen. We might be witnessing the beginning of the Nuclear Era in power generation.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Aug 1, 2007)

We currently have people actively involved with the initial licensing of South Texas Project (STP) units 3 and 4. They're trying to be the first utility to get a combined construction/operation license. The separate license deal was one of the things the things that stopped construction of the plants. The local communities would be all for constructing the plant since it meant all those jobs would be there. Once the thing was built, they didn't want an operating nuclear plant in their back yard. The utilities won't make the capital investment without some assurance that if they build it like they say they will, they will be allowed to operate it.

The work right now at STP is big picture design parameter stuff. The big problem is that since there hasn't been a new one put on line in so long, most of the people that know how to go about initial design are gone. A similar problem is waiting when it comes time to do start-up testing. Not a lot of people left around that have experience placing a 1300 MW turbine-generator set on line. The next ten years are going to be pretty interesting for the nuclear industry.

Jim


----------



## Dark Knight (Aug 2, 2007)

IFR_Pilot said:


> Not a lot of people left around that have experience placing a 1300 MW turbine-generator set on line. The next ten years are going to be pretty interesting for the nuclear industry.
> Jim


You are right. They Nuclear Industry had a boom about 20 or 25 years ago but fear to the unknown and isolated failures put it to the rest. Now, with new technology and more knowledge, will come back again. When you think about the effect of a NP on the environment against the fossil fuel plants you can see Nuclear is the way to go.


----------



## Guest (Aug 2, 2007)

I tend to agree that nuclear energy is the way to go CONSIDERING our energy demands will continue to escalate. Having visited both conventional (coal/oil-fired plants) and nuclear power plants, I think a bigger issue that is looming is not the final disposition of spent waste but identifying, training, and maintaining a technical workforce capable of operating a nuclear power plant. The conventional power plants I have visited employ anywhere from 60 - 100 folks (I am talking generating side, not transmission). If you go to a nuclear power plant you have well over 1,000 employees not including contractors. It takes A LOT of folks and not just someone off the street to operate a nuclear power plant.

Oh .. and the license. Nuclear power plant operators must re-test to maintain thier license every 5 weeks .. yes 5 weeks! The tests are designed to be very difficult and require you to think across many different facets of a the plant operations.

I am not sure if our country has an adequately educated/motivated pool of QUALIFIED candidates to draw upon. At least initially there would be a tremendous scramble to start training folks which is why everyone needs to start talking about it now.

However, going back to the original thought in this thread, I think the only feasible way to meet energy demands while scaling back on emissions will be to move towards nuclear power.

:2cents:

JR


----------



## grover (Aug 2, 2007)

The biggest hurdle to nuclear power is irrational fear of OMG ATOMZ!!! If people were more educated about nuclear power, I doubt we'd see such backlash. Especially not when compared to coal or oil, especially in the present geopolitical climate.


----------



## Dark Knight (Aug 2, 2007)

grover said:


> The biggest hurdle to nuclear power is irrational fear of OMG ATOMZ!!! If people were more educated about nuclear power, I doubt we'd see such backlash. Especially not when compared to coal or oil, especially in the present geopolitical climate.


You are so right.


----------



## chaosiscash (Aug 2, 2007)

Luis said:


> Let us see what happen. We might be witnessing the beginning of the Nuclear Era in power generation.


I sure hope so. As a guy that works as a contractor in the "other" side of the nuke industry, we have absorbed an awful lot of employees that have been laid off from the nuke power plants in the last 20 years. If nuke power comes back, not only do I think it will be good for the country, but to be selfish, it should really drive up rates for guys like me, as those nuke power guys go back because their experience there is greatly needed.

In talking with some of my electrician buddies, there are around 10-12 startups expected within the next 10 or so years, with Watts bar (just down the road from us here in Oak Ridge) on the front end. They'll be a lot of money out there for a roadwhore with the right quals.

Chaos


----------



## udpolo15 (Aug 2, 2007)

There was just an article in CNN (I think) about this. They talked about how chernobyl, which is considered a worst case nuclear disaster, has only killed 75 people to date and about 4K case of cancer attributable. this is compared to a dam in China that if it were to fail, either from terrorism, natural disaster, construction/design issues, would kill over 1 million.

Here is the article. (my numbers were little off)

http://money.cnn.com/2007/07/24/magazines/...g_one/index.htm


----------



## Wolverine (Aug 2, 2007)

It's public knowledge that GA is seeking a new nuclear site license, so add us to the list.

I'm not sure where the opposition is coming from, (perhaps the new hippie, anti-everything, socialist BANANAS [build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything)], :bananalama: but one would have to forget the advances in technology and safety in the last 30 years to oppose nuclear power on a safety level. I don't consider a 2007 mini-van with impact absorption bumpers and full zone airbag protection to have the same security level as Mom's 1977 Chevy wagon, even though hers did actually come with rear lap belts as a standard feature.

As for spent nuclear fuel, I often say that much like coal ash - the bane of the last century - in the next 100 years we'll figure out some useful function for it and go digging it back up. So should Yucca Mtn ever get approved, don't seal it up TOO tight.

I'm thinking to tell the kids NE is the way to go in college.


----------



## Guest (Aug 2, 2007)

Wolverine said:


> socialist BANANAS [build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything)], :bananalama:


That is an awesome acronym !!! lusone: :Locolaugh: :Locolaugh:



Wolverine said:


> I'm thinking to tell the kids NE is the way to go in college.


Don't go overboard just yet .... I don't think the climate is ripe for 'acceptance' of nuclear energy. Maybe once oil hits, say $150 per barrel and reality for the scale of economy sets in, then maybe there will be some traction. Until then it is going to be an in-the-trenches battle between the extremists on either side of the argument.

I say let the #'s tell the story. :2cents:

JR


----------



## TouchDown (Aug 2, 2007)

I belonged to NSPE for a year, cut my membership in June because I just didn't go to many meetings (main reason for belonging) - most of the topics were definately civil related. I got tired of hearing about concrete (sorry civils).

But - they had a recruiter from NRC who discussed that they were in a crunch to hire a LOT of people. They showed a bell curve of their current employees and many were in their late 40's and 50's. Then he went on to explain that in the last year, they got applications for building another 40 nuclear plants in the US, and many with different designs that had to be approved by the NRC before they could be built. He said that this is a 2nd nuclear revolution spurred by the growing energy demand, increasing costs of natural resources (coal, gas, etc.) for power generation.

Basically, he said they were looking to add a lot of people right now because they are already swamped, and this is the largest 1 year application request for builds that they have ever experienced.

Something to take note of. Nuclear power in Europe is much more common, and that's where the newest designs are coming from - many that are already operating in Europe.


----------



## grover (Aug 2, 2007)

udpolo15 said:


> There was just an article in CNN (I think) about this. They talked about how chernobyl, which is considered a worst case nuclear disaster, has only killed 75 people to date and about 4K case of cancer attributable. this is compared to a dam in China that if it were to fail, either from terrorism, natural disaster, construction/design issues, would kill over 1 million.


I saved this post from a similar discussion a few years ago. It really puts nuclear power in perspective.



> For a 1000 MWe power plant:
> If you run it on coal power, you will use approximately 3.2 *million* tonnes of black coal per year.
> 
> If you run it with nuclear power you will use approximately 25 tonnes of uranium per year.
> ...


----------



## Flyer_PE (Aug 3, 2007)

jregieng said:


> Oh .. and the license. Nuclear power plant operators must re-test to maintain thier license every 5 weeks .. yes 5 weeks! The tests are designed to be very difficult and require you to think across many different facets of a the plant operations.
> I am not sure if our country has an adequately educated/motivated pool of QUALIFIED candidates to draw upon. At least initially there would be a tremendous scramble to start training folks which is why everyone needs to start talking about it now.


I think the real trick will be motivation more than anything else. I opted out of the operations career path because I didn't want to be placed on a constantly rotating shift for five or more years. Also, the initial training for the Reactor Operator license is a bite. When it was offered to me, it was 14 months of class and simulator time followed by at least six months of OJT with one of the operating crews. I knew quite a few really smart people that flunked out of it because the pace was a killer. It also seemed to be a pretty reliable divorce generator.

The requal training/testing is pretty intense also. They set up accident scenarios in the simulator and test the control room operating crew as a whole. You do not pass or fail as an individual in these things, the entire crew passes or fails as a group. Failing that simulator test is a BIG deal. They pull the crew out of the rotation until they get their collective act together. This makes for some unpleasant times for the other crews as they take up the slack.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 3, 2007)

Sounds like the training program is based heavily on the Navy's Nuke School.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Aug 3, 2007)

Captain Worley said:


> Sounds like the training program is based heavily on the Navy's Nuke School.



Just about everything in the nuclear power industry is based on navy nuclear programs. There's a very large contingent of ex-navy nuclear personnel at every plant I have worked for.

Jim


----------



## Flyer_PE (Aug 3, 2007)

A buddy of mine sent me this. Looks like things are moving along for some new construction:



> Washington Post - Firm Applies To Expand Nuclear Plant In Maryland
> By Steven Mufson
> 
> 07/31/07 - The first application to build a new U.S. nuclear power plant in three decades has been filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, bumping a proposed third unit at a Calvert County site to the front of a list of reactors being considered by the nuclear power industry.
> ...


----------



## Dleg (Aug 5, 2007)

Oh come on guys, if Homer Simpson can do it, I'm sure you can too.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Aug 6, 2007)

Dleg said:


> Oh come on guys, if Homer Simpson can do it, I'm sure you can too.


Doh!


----------



## Dark Knight (Aug 6, 2007)

We only have to stay a night at a Holyday Inn


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2007)

^^^ I am staying at a Holiday Inn Express tonight. :true: Does that count ??

:bio: :woot:

JR


----------



## Dark Knight (Aug 6, 2007)

jregieng said:


> ^^^ I am staying at a Holiday Inn Express tonight. :true: Does that count ??
> :bio: :woot:
> 
> JR


Dang. I blew it. Holyday Inn Express...my bad.

It counts JR... lusone:


----------



## Flyer_PE (Aug 6, 2007)

jregieng said:


> ^^^ I am staying at a Holiday Inn Express tonight. :true: Does that count ??
> :bio: :woot:
> 
> JR



Dammit! I'm stuck in a Best Western in podunk Minnesota. I guess I'll still be the same dim bulb tomorrow that I was today. 

Jim


----------



## Dark Knight (Aug 6, 2007)

I am sleeping on my bed tonight so that makes me a lost cause.

But I am not sleeping alone.... :bio:


----------

