Let's go Nuclear

Professional Engineer & PE Exam Forum

Help Support Professional Engineer & PE Exam Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Dark Knight

Silent Guardian
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
3,617
Reaction score
310
Location
Central Florida
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.

 
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

 
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.

 
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

 
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.

 
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.

 
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

 
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

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.

 
socialist BANANAS [build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything)], :bananalama:
That is an awesome acronym !!! :plusone: :Locolaugh: :Locolaugh:

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

 
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.

 
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.

One uses an amount of fuel equivalent to a truck. The other uses an amount equivalent to a small ******* mountain.

For the above power plants, the coal powered plant will actually release more uranium into the air (from impurities in the coal) than the nuclear plant will consume as fuel.

And if you look at the link Chef posted, you see that every year coal power plants release almost 830,000 tonnes of uranium into the air.

830,000 tonnes.

Right into the air in convenient particulate form for people to breathe. The same people who freak out at any mention of nuclear power because it's OMG SO DANGEROUS!
 
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.

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

 
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

 
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.

Constellation Energy Group of Baltimore has filed a partial application with the NRC, asking the commission to review environmental plans for a 1,600-megawatt reactor at the Calvert Cliffs site in Lusby, Md., that could cost $4 billion.

The filing marked another small step toward a resurgence of the nuclear power industry, bolstered by generous federal tax incentives and growing concern about the greenhouse gases emitted by coal-fired plants, which supply half the country's electricity. There has not been an application to build a nuclear power plant in the United States since before the partial meltdown at one of the Three Mile Island units in Pennsylvania in 1979.

"It's partial, but it's the first application to operate and build a new reactor that the NRC has received in about 30 years," NRC spokesman Scott Burnell said yesterday.

The existing pair of Calvert Cliffs reactors -- which went into service in 1975 and 1977 -- are the closest ones to the nation's capital, 50 miles southeast of the District.

Companies seeking to build nuclear plants can qualify for energy production tax credits and certain loan guarantees under the 2005 Energy Policy Act only if they get the NRC to accept construction permits before the end of 2008. Burnell said the NRC expects as many as 18 other nuclear power plant applications by then, though many critics of nuclear power say high costs and continuing problems with nuclear waste disposal will likely prevent most of them from being built.

So far, four other companies have asked for early site permits from the NRC, and two have been approved. But Constellation's environmental application -- filed July 13 and reported yesterday by Bloomberg News -- skips that step and represents a greater financial commitment. Once the NRC starts considering the application, the clock starts running on review costs, which could reach $46 million for the company, Burnell said. Constellation said application costs could eventually reach $100 million, part of which would be covered by the Energy Department to encourage development.

Construction of the plant would not be imminent, however. Constellation is expected to file the safety part of its application, with details about the reactor's design, early next year. The NRC technical review could last 21/2 years, followed by another year for hearings.

Constellation Senior Vice President George Vanderheyden said yesterday that the company had not made a final decision to go ahead with the plant. "No entity, including Constellation, has yet made a decision to build a nuclear power plant, but we're moving as aggressively as we can down the first phase, which is the licensing phase," Vanderheyden said.

However, he said, Constellation has been positioning itself to build a new fleet of standardized nuclear power plants for which the Calvert Cliffs unit would be a model.

"Perhaps the most significant contribution Constellation Energy can make would be to deploy the first standardized fleet of new nuclear power plants in almost three decades," Constellation chief executive Mayo A. Shattuck III said last week in an earnings release.

Electric utilities across the country have been inching ahead with plans for new nuclear plants. Thanks to concerns about emissions of global-warming gases, opposition has been mounting against coal-fired power plants. If Congress adopts legislation that would tax or limit carbon dioxide emissions, that would put another burden on coal plants and give an additional advantage to nuclear plants, which do not emit any greenhouse gases.

"It is another commitment by a utility to . . . nuclear in the context of constraints on fossil fuels and the increasing importance of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions," said John O'Neill, a lawyer with Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman who represents several companies in the nuclear-power business. "They have limited options, and they're making both an economic and a national-interest judgment."

Others disagree. "We're still in the phase where the utilities are testing the waters," said Edwin Lyman, a nuclear power expert at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Until we see investors put money down toward the multibillion-dollar cost of building new plants, one should remain skeptical that there's any major shift underway."

Lyman added that the UCS opposes nuclear subsidies and maintains "that nuclear is not likely to be the lowest-cost way of mitigating greenhouse-gas emissions."

While many energy experts have criticized the size of federal incentives for nuclear power, Vanderheyden said more loan guarantees would be needed. He said the current ceiling on guarantees would be enough to cover the cost of no more than two plants. The nuclear power industry has been lobbying Congress to sharply increase the size of the loan-guarantee program as part of this year's energy bill.

To help deal with the financial burden of building the nuclear plants, Constellation has made an agreement with Electricite de France, which will make an initial investment of $350 million in a joint venture and invest up to $275 million later to develop nuclear plants in the United States and Canada. EDF could also acquire up to 9.9 percent of Constellation stock in the open market.

EDF is the largest electricity producer in Europe. It has operated 58 nuclear plants for more than 20 years.
 
Oh come on guys, if Homer Simpson can do it, I'm sure you can too.

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

:bio: :woot:

JR

 

Latest posts

Back
Top